To, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant appealed against a total sentence of 16 years' imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court at Bristol on 5 April 2024 after pleading guilty to multiple counts including conspiracy to contravene sections of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and possession of criminal property contrary to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The offending involved a sophisticated and large-scale operation importing, exporting, and supplying synthetic cannabinoids ("Spice") over four years. The Appellant led the operation involving trusted individuals, including family members, and was involved in the importation of large quantities of drugs from China, dilution and distribution domestically and internationally, and laundering proceeds through cash and Bitcoin transactions. Despite initial arrest in August 2020, the Appellant continued criminal activity while on bail. The sentencing judge imposed consecutive sentences for some counts to reflect the distinct criminal activities involved and applied a discount for the Appellant’s guilty pleas.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the imposition of consecutive sentences for counts 2 and 5 gave insufficient regard to the principle of totality, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.
2. Whether the overall sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment was just and proportionate given the nature and scale of the offending and the application of sentencing guidelines.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive due to insufficient regard to the principle of totality when imposing consecutive sentences for counts 2 and 5.
• The effective sentence after applying the 25% discount for guilty pleas equated to approximately 22 years if the case had gone to trial, which was disproportionate for Class B drug offences.
• The operation was a single enterprise involving importation, mixing, and supply, and the sentencing guidelines should reflect this with concurrent sentences for counts 1 and 2 and an aggregate sentence adjusted proportionately.
• The discount for the plea on count 5 should have been one-third rather than 25%, given the late addition of that count to the indictment.
• The high degree of overlap between counts 1, 2, and 5 should have led to a greater reduction in sentence to reflect totality.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the Appellant’s role as the leader of a sophisticated, industrial-scale conspiracy involving large quantities of synthetic cannabinoids and substantial financial gain. The court accepted the sentencing judge’s approach to distinguish between separate criminal activities—importation, supply, and possession of criminal property—and to impose consecutive sentences accordingly. The court emphasized that the principle of totality had been properly considered, as evidenced by the concurrent sentence on one count and the overall reduction of two and a half years across the sentences for counts 1, 2, and 5. The court also highlighted the relevance of Wilson, noting that harm in conspiracy cases includes intended or foreseen harm beyond direct involvement, and that the conspiracy was only ended by effective police action. The Appellant’s continuation of criminal activity while on bail further justified consecutive sentencing. The court concluded that the sentence, while at the higher end, was not manifestly excessive and was a just and proportionate reflection of the criminality.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the total sentence of 16 years' imprisonment, affirming the appropriateness of consecutive sentences to reflect distinct criminal activities within a single conspiracy. The decision confirms that in large-scale conspiracy cases, sentencing must account for the entirety of the criminal enterprise, including intended future harm, and that the principle of totality does not preclude consecutive sentences where justified. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles.