Ross, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was charged with multiple counts relating to conspiracy to supply controlled drugs and conspiracy to purchase or acquire prohibited weapons. Initially, on 16 June 2023 at the Crown Court at Liverpool, the appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of conspiracy to supply a class B controlled drug. Subsequently, on 20 December 2023, the appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply a class A drug and conspiracy to purchase or acquire prohibited weapons. On 9 February 2024, the appellant was sentenced to a total of 15 years' imprisonment, comprising concurrent sentences for drug-related counts and a consecutive term for the weapons offence. A separate charge of conspiracy to sell or transfer prohibited weapons was ordered to lie on the file.

The offences were supported by evidence derived from EncroChat material attributed to the appellant, spanning from late March to early June 2020. The appellant was identified as acting as a commodity broker in drugs, involved in significant quantities of cannabis, amphetamine, and heroin. The firearms conspiracy involved attempts to acquire high-powered automatic weapons and ammunition, as interpreted by a firearms expert.

At sentencing, the appellant was 34 years old with a substantial criminal history including previous drug-related convictions and a recent custodial sentence for involvement in cannabis production. The sentencing court considered psychological and intermediary reports, character references, and submissions in mitigation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to the full percentage reduction in sentence credit for guilty pleas as stated by the judge.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the level of harm in the conspiracy to acquire firearms, particularly in relation to the inchoate nature of the offence.
3. Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the principle of totality in light of the appellant’s prior custodial sentence and time spent in custody.
4. Whether the delay in charging the appellant with the offences adversely affected the fairness of the sentencing.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant argued that the judge did not apply the full 15% reduction for guilty pleas on counts 1 and 6, resulting in minor but incorrect sentence calculations.
• The appellant contended that the judge erred in categorising the harm level as high (category 1) for the firearms offence, asserting that the offence was inchoate since the weapons were never obtained, and thus a lower harm category was appropriate.
• The appellant submitted that the sentencing judge failed to adequately account for totality, particularly given the appellant’s prior custodial sentence and the substantial time already spent in custody.
• The appellant argued that the significant delay between the EncroChat data capture (June 2020) and the charging date (February 2023) was unjustified and should have been considered in mitigation.

Appellee's Arguments

• The prosecution accepted minor miscalculations in plea reductions but maintained these were insignificant and did not affect the overall just and proportionate sentence.
• The prosecution submitted that the high level of harm assessment was appropriate given the appellant’s significant role in a large-scale drug conspiracy and the context of the firearm acquisition attempts.
• Regarding delay, the prosecution acknowledged the time lapse but argued there was no evidence of adverse impact on the appellant, and that the appellant’s prior licence status and conduct diminished the effect of any delay.
• The prosecution supported the sentence as reflecting the entirety of the offending and consistent with sentencing principles including totality.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the minor discrepancies in the calculation of plea reductions, concluding these were insignificant and did not undermine the overall sentencing exercise. The judge’s approach was not a mechanistic application of percentage reductions but a holistic assessment of a just and proportionate sentence.

On the harm categorisation for the firearms offence, the court differentiated the present case from R v Nurden, emphasizing the appellant’s significant and sophisticated role in a large-scale conspiracy involving drugs and firearms. The judge was entitled to find a high risk of serious harm given the context and the intended use of the weapons and ammunition, applying section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020 which requires consideration of intended or foreseeable harm.

The court acknowledged the appellant’s arguments regarding delay but found no evidence of adverse impact. The appellant’s prior licence status and the fact that the delay was partly due to his late pleas mitigated the effect of any delay. The judge properly took into account the totality principle, considering the prior sentence and time spent in custody, and made appropriate reductions to avoid an excessive total sentence.

Ultimately, the court found the 15-year sentence severe but not manifestly excessive, reflecting the seriousness of the appellant’s offending and respecting sentencing principles including totality and proportionality.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was DISMISSED.

The court upheld the sentencing judge’s decision, confirming that the sentence imposed was lawful, just, and proportionate. The decision affirms the application of sentencing principles in complex cases involving multiple drug conspiracies and firearms offences, particularly the assessment of harm in inchoate offences and the application of totality in the context of prior custodial sentences. No new precedent was established beyond the considered application of existing authorities.