Factual and Procedural Background
On 15 March 2024, in the Crown Court at Birmingham before Her Honour Judge Buckingham, the Appellant pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to one offence of conspiracy to supply a Class A drug, specifically cocaine, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. On 17 July 2024, the judge sentenced the Appellant to four years' imprisonment. The Appellant appealed against the sentence by leave of the single judge.
The Appellant lived in a flat in Edgbaston and was in a romantic relationship with a co-conspirator, referred to as Co-Conspirator A. In May 2021, Co-Conspirator A was arrested for involvement in the supply of Class A drugs. His mobile phone was seized and analysed, revealing documentation with the Appellant's name and address. WhatsApp messages between the Appellant and Co-Conspirator A indicated her involvement in the supply of cocaine.
Co-Conspirator A instructed the Appellant to prepare quantities of cocaine for onward supply, including ounces, quarters, sixteenths, and smaller street-level amounts. He also informed her about his and other conspirators’ activities and the weekly profit of £3,500 from the drugs line.
Specific instances include the Appellant preparing one ounce of cocaine on 17 September 2020 and reporting a large block of compressed cocaine weighing 252 grams on 5 November 2020. The Appellant was jointly charged with Co-Conspirator A and four others. Initially, the prosecution attributed between 778 grams and one kilogram of cocaine to the Appellant’s direct involvement; by sentencing, this was adjusted to 750 grams.
The Appellant pleaded guilty on a written basis of plea accepted by the prosecution, stating she acted under emotional pressure from Co-Conspirator A, did not receive financial reward, and was involved only as a favour. Her role was limited to weighing drugs, and she was unaware of the scale of the operation.
The judge expressed scepticism about the Appellant’s claimed limited role but accepted the basis of plea for the appeal. The Appellant had no previous convictions, presented a low risk of re-offending per a pre-sentence report, had completed a business management degree, and ran a hairdressing business.
In sentencing, the judge found the offence involved category 2 harm with an indicative quantity of 750 grams of cocaine. The parties agreed the Appellant had a "lesser role," which carries a starting point of five years' custody and a range of three years six months to seven years. However, the judge found the Appellant had some awareness of the operation’s scale, elevating her role to "significant," with a starting point of eight years and a range of six years six months to ten years.
The judge noted mitigating factors including emotional pressure and lack of influence in the chain, reducing the sentence from a notional six and a half years to five years, then applying a 20% discount for the late guilty plea, resulting in the four-year sentence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the judge erred in concluding that the Appellant had a significant role in the conspiracy contrary to the basis of plea which stated a lesser role.
- Whether the starting point of a notional six and a half years was manifestly excessive given the Appellant’s role and the facts of the case.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The judge was bound by the basis of plea to treat the Appellant as having a lesser role, as it stated she was unaware of the scale of the operation.
- The judge erred in starting at a notional sentence of six and a half years, leading to a manifestly excessive sentence.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court rejected the argument that the judge sentenced the Appellant outside the scope of the basis of plea. The basis of plea’s assertion that the Appellant was unaware of the scale of "the operation" was interpreted to mean she was unaware of the many kilograms supplied in the overall conspiracy, not that she had no awareness of the wider involvement or value of the drug line. The uncontradicted evidence showed Co-Conspirator A informed her about these matters, justifying the judge’s conclusion that the Appellant had some awareness of the scale of Co-Conspirator A’s activities.
The judge reasonably found the Appellant to have a "significant role" at the bottom end of that category, reflecting a balanced view of her awareness and involvement. The court noted that even had the judge accepted a lesser role, an upward adjustment would have been appropriate to reflect the significant role factor.
The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. It acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, the seven-month duration of involvement, and the Appellant’s participation in a larger conspiracy. The emotional pressure was limited, and mitigating factors such as lack of previous convictions and remorse warranted limited weight. The court found no basis to reduce the sentence below the starting point for a lesser role offence before discount for plea. The 20% discount for the late guilty plea was uncontested.
Accordingly, the court concluded the four-year sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.
Holding and Implications
The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.
The direct effect is that the four-year imprisonment sentence imposed on the Appellant stands. No new precedent was established by this decision. The ruling confirms the court’s approach to evaluating the factual basis of pleas and the assessment of role and culpability in drug conspiracy offences, emphasizing careful consideration of the defendant’s actual awareness and involvement within the conspiracy.