Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a summary of a judgment of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division arising from an application by the Appellant for renewed leave to appeal against sentence and for extensions of time to bring that application. The hearing concerned two extension requests: a short (3 day) extension to renew an earlier application and a longer (111 day) extension to bring the original application. The short extension was granted; the longer extension depended on the merits of the renewed application.

The Appellant pleaded guilty to: a conspiracy to supply a Class A drug (cocaine); two conspiracies to supply Class B drugs (cannabis and amphetamine); and a conspiracy to sell or transfer prohibited weapons. The conspiracies operated between 25 March and 13 June 2020. On 5 January 2024 the Appellant was sentenced in the Crown Court to 11 years' imprisonment on the Class A conspiracy count, with no separate penalty on the two Class B counts, and 11 years' imprisonment concurrent on the weapons conspiracy count. The Appellant received 15% credit for plea.

The Appellant had a prior conviction on 2 July 2020 in another Crown Court, when he was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment for possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of ammunition without a firearms certificate; that earlier matter related to a firearm found hidden in a van on 1 May 2020. The Appellant was serving that earlier sentence when arrested for the conspiracies now under appeal.

Investigation evidence (derived from an encrypted telecommunications network) placed the Appellant as a courier and cash handler in a wholesale drugs operation run from higher level organisers. The Appellant used an encrypted communications handle and was described as principally a courier of cash and, at times, of kilogram blocks of cocaine. He also held and transferred, at the direction of an organiser, a firearm that formed the subject of the earlier proceedings. The enterprise purchased and distributed significant quantities of cocaine (28 kg sourced and sold between March and May 2020) and involved large sums of money.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant should be granted an extension of time (111 days) and leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds that the aggregate sentence (taking into account an earlier sentence) was disproportionate to the totality of offending.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred by applying an uplift to the sentencing starting point to reflect the aggravating factor of using an encrypted communications device (the encrypted telecommunications network).
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in awarding the Appellant 15% credit for guilty pleas, given the contention that an earlier plea might have been entered if certain procedural applications (including an abuse/stay application) had been resolved sooner.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that, when the earlier custodial sentence is aggregated with the sentence imposed in the Crown Court at sentencing for the conspiracies, the overall sentence (effectively 17 years) was disproportionate to his criminality and the totality of offending.
• The Appellant argued that the sentencing judge made an unfair and arbitrary uplift to the starting point for sentence to reflect the use of an encrypted communications device, and that the uplift was improperly applied.
• The Appellant submitted that he should have been given greater credit for his guilty plea (more than 15%) because, had the application to stay the indictment as an abuse been heard earlier, he would have pleaded guilty sooner.

The opinion records helpful written and oral submissions from the Appellant's counsel (referred to in the transcript as the representative appearing for the Applicant). The opinion does not set out in detail any separate, specific written submissions from the Plaintiff (prosecution); the court's response to the Appellant's points is recorded in the reasoning below.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court (comprising Judge Dingemans, Judge Tipples and Judge Forster sitting as a Judge of the Criminal Appeal Court) proceeded as follows.

1. On the procedural applications: the Court treated the shorter extension (3 days) as a minor, excusable error unrelated to the Appellant; that short extension was granted. The larger extension of time (111 days) was considered on its merits and turned on whether there were arguable grounds of appeal.
2. On the challenge to overall proportionality/totality: the Court observed that, when the aggregate criminality is considered — notably the wholesale nature of the cocaine conspiracy, the substantial quantities of cocaine (28 kg), the significant sums of money involved (just over £662,000 paid to acquire the cocaine during the relevant period), and the supply/transfer of firearms — the aggregate sentence could not be described as manifestly excessive. In the Court's view the single judge at first instance had been entitled to reach the sentence imposed; there was no arguable case that the aggregate sentence was disproportionate.
3. On the uplift for use of an encrypted communications device: the Court accepted that the use of sophisticated encryption to conceal criminal activity is an aggravating factor. Although the Appellant's counsel pointed out that this feature had already been taken into account in relation to the earlier firearm offence, the Court concluded it was properly taken into account for the present offences as well. The Court treated the use of the encrypted telecommunications network (described in the transcript) as an aggravating feature that justified a sentencing uplift.
4. On the plea credit issue: the Court examined the Appellant's plea history and acceptances. The Appellant had not pleaded guilty at earlier procedural stages and had not earlier accepted attribution of the encrypted device. The Court noted that aspects of the Appellant's procedural conduct (including pursuing issues about admissibility of the encrypted evidence) produced tactical advantages. The Appellant did eventually plead guilty after certain earlier applications were determined, but the Court found no error in the sentencing judge's decision to award 15% credit. The Appellant's counsel conceded that this ground, standing alone, would not have been pursued.
5. Conclusion on merits: taking those points together, the Court found there were no arguable grounds of appeal sufficient to justify granting the longer extension of time or leave to appeal. As a result the Court refused the application for the 111 day extension and refused leave to appeal on the merits.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Court granted the short (3 day) extension of time but refused the longer (111 day) extension and refused leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds presented because there were no arguable grounds of appeal.

Immediate consequences: the Appellant's sentence as imposed by the Crown Court (11 years on the Class A conspiracy count, concurrent 11 years on the weapons conspiracy count, with no separate penalties on the Class B counts, and 15% credit for plea) stands. The earlier 6 year sentence for the separate firearms matter remains part of the Appellant's aggregate time to be served; the Court concluded the aggregate outcome is not manifestly excessive.

Broader implications: the judgment applies established sentencing principles to the facts and does not purport to create new legal precedent. The decision confirms (i) that significant wholesale drug offending combined with firearms offending will support substantial custodial sentences, (ii) that use of sophisticated/encrypted communications to hide criminality can be an aggravating factor justifying uplift, and (iii) that plea credit remains a matter for judicial evaluation in light of the timing and tactical choices surrounding pleas and procedural applications.

This summary is produced solely from the contents of the provided transcript and is strictly anonymised. It does not add information beyond what the court expressly stated in the opinion.