Terry, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant applied for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal and leave to appeal against a 25-year sentence imposed on 8 December 2023. This sentence followed a guilty plea on the first day of trial to multiple counts concerning the importation and supply of cocaine and one count relating to the importation of cannabis. The 25-year sentence was ordered to run concurrently across counts and alongside an existing 18-year sentence imposed earlier in 2023 for a separate offence involving cocaine exportation to Ireland.

The Appellant's co-accused pleaded guilty or were convicted after trial, receiving various sentences. The case involved detailed evidence from intercepted communications and surveillance demonstrating a complex drug trafficking operation involving repeated importations of cocaine and cannabis from the Netherlands and distribution within the United Kingdom and Ireland. The Appellant was identified as having a leading role in organising and directing these activities.

The Appellant also renewed an application to appeal the earlier 18-year sentence, which was not pressed orally but remained relevant to the overall sentencing context.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an extension of time should be granted for the application for leave to appeal the 25-year sentence.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in the starting point and application of the totality principle in sentencing.
3. Whether the judge erred in characterising the Appellant’s role as leading rather than significant.
4. Whether the sentencing judge erred by increasing the sentence due to the November 2023 conviction for conspiracy to import cocaine.
5. Whether the sentencing judge erred in the credit given for the Appellant’s guilty plea.
6. Whether the sentence imposed on the count relating to the importation of a class B drug was unlawful.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point for sentencing was excessively high given the total quantities of drugs involved.
• The sentencing judge erred in applying the totality principle.
• The sentence was improperly increased due to the November 2023 conviction.
• The judge should have considered the Appellant’s role as significant rather than leading.
• The Appellant should have received a 10% credit for the belated guilty plea at trial start, as opposed to the lesser credit given.
• The judge failed to properly account for the Appellant’s prior custodial sentence being long ago and unrelated to class A drugs.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The court found grounds relating to the starting point, totality principle, role characterisation, and credit for plea not reasonably arguable.
• The court upheld the sentencing judge’s characterisation of the Appellant as playing a leading role, supported by extensive evidence.
• The court rejected the claim that the sentence was manifestly excessive given the scale and seriousness of the offences.
• The court found no error in the judge’s approach to the prior convictions or the aggravating factors considered.
• The court agreed that the sentence on the count relating to the importation of a class B drug was unlawful and required correction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Wraight [2021] EWCA Crim 1968	Sentencing for a leading role in a large-scale cocaine conspiracy involving 120 kilos.	The court distinguished the present case from Wraight, noting the Appellant’s higher role and that Wraight was at the lower end of leading role categorisation, thus justifying a higher starting point in the present case.
R v Hizam [2023] EWCA Crim 628	Principles for comparing sentences in drug offences, emphasizing the need to consider all significant factors beyond drug quantity or conspiracy length.	The court cited this precedent to caution against simplistic comparisons of sentences based solely on drug quantity, supporting the sentencing judge’s approach.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the Appellant’s role in the drug trafficking conspiracy, concluding that the sentencing judge was entitled to characterise it as leading and pivotal. This was supported by evidence of the Appellant’s organisation, direction, and control over multiple large-scale importations and distributions of cocaine and cannabis.

The court rejected the notion that the starting point of 27 years was manifestly excessive, considering the seriousness, scale, and commercial nature of the offending. It also found that the sentencing judge properly applied the totality principle by imposing a concurrent sentence to the 18-year sentence already being served, reflecting the overall criminality.

Regarding credit for the guilty plea, the court held that a lesser credit than the maximum 10% was appropriate given the timing of the plea and the totality of offending. The court also rejected submissions that the sentence was improperly increased due to the November 2023 conviction, explaining that this conviction was part of the overall offending considered in sentencing rather than an aggravating prior conviction.

The court identified an unlawful sentence imposed on the count relating to the importation of a class B drug, where the statutory maximum is 14 years, not 25. This error required correction but did not affect the overall assessment of the Appellant’s criminality or the total sentence length.

In relation to the extension of time sought for the appeal, the court noted a significant delay without good reason but accepted explanations related to new legal representation, funding, and counsel’s workload. It granted the extension only to the extent necessary to correct the unlawful sentence.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED an extension of time for the limited purpose of appealing the unlawful sentence on the count relating to the importation of a class B controlled drug. The appeal was ALLOWED in this respect, quashing the 25-year sentence on that count and substituting a lawful sentence of 14 years, to run concurrently with the other counts and the 18-year sentence already being served.

In all other respects, the extension of time was REFUSED and the appeal was DISMISSED. The court did not find any error warranting reduction or alteration of the remaining sentences. No new precedent was established beyond the correction of the unlawful sentence. The decision directly affects the Appellant by reducing one count’s sentence but maintains the overall punitive effect of the sentencing.