Blower & Ors, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 20 November 2024, in the Crown Court at Mold, His Honour Judge Rowlands sentenced six male defendants for their involvement in offences of conspiracy to supply, and possession with intent to supply, large quantities of Class A controlled drugs. The defendants were part of a broader criminal operation led by a principal conspirator, involving the importation of cocaine and heroin from Europe via the Eurotunnel and subsequent distribution within the country. Evidence was presented of nine importation events between May and September 2023, each involving concealed loads of Class A drugs transported to a farm in North Wales where they were repackaged for distribution to various regions. On the final occasion, police intervened, seizing over 500 kilograms of cocaine and over 100 kilograms of heroin, with an estimated total conspiracy involving 2,000 to 3,000 kilograms of drugs valued at £200 million to £300 million street value.

Individual defendants had varying roles, from directing collections to transporting drugs to different parts of the country. Several defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy or possession with intent to supply, and personal mitigation was presented in each case. Related proceedings in the Crown Court at Chester resulted in sentences for other key conspirators involved in the same operation.

Following sentencing, one defendant applied for leave to appeal against his sentence as manifestly excessive, while His Majesty's Solicitor General applied for leave to refer the sentences of the other five defendants on grounds of undue leniency pursuant to section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the appellant defendant was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentences imposed on the other five defendants were unduly lenient and should be increased on referral by His Majesty's Solicitor General.
3. How to appropriately apply the Sentencing Council's definitive guideline for category 1A Class A drug offences to defendants involved in a large-scale conspiracy with quantities significantly exceeding guideline indicatives.
4. The extent to which personal mitigation should reduce sentences in the context of serious drug conspiracies involving very large quantities.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant argued his notional starting sentence of 21 years was too high, especially compared to others involved in more events but receiving lower sentences.
• He contended that although he had a leading role in two events, he was under direction from others and his involvement was limited.
• Complaint was made that the judge did not indicate a significantly longer sentence was being considered despite submissions suggesting a lower starting point.
• Mitigation included his previous good character, expressions of remorse, and mental health considerations, including low intellectual functioning and drug addiction history.

His Majesty's Solicitor General's Arguments

• All other defendants’ sentences were unduly lenient because the judge failed to sufficiently uplift starting points to reflect the very large quantities involved.
• The judge gave excessive credit for personal mitigation, except in one defendant’s case where mitigation was particularly significant.
• The purity and scale of the drugs were additional aggravating factors warranting higher sentences.
• Comparisons with sentences imposed by another judge on related defendants were relevant to illustrate the leniency.

Defendants' Arguments

• Defendants argued sentences were appropriate, reflecting a careful and correct approach by the sentencing judge.
• Some emphasised the limited roles played by defendants, recent recruitment, or short duration of involvement.
• Personal mitigation such as previous good character, lack of prior relevant convictions, and expressions of remorse were highlighted.
• Arguments were made that the sentencing judge was properly informed by related sentences and that any leniency was not undue.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Khan and Others [2013] EWCA Crim 800	Use of Sentencing Council definitive guideline for substantive drug supply offences when sentencing conspiracies; recognition that conspiracy involvement is an aggravating factor increasing culpability.	The court applied the guideline for substantive offences to the conspiracy charges and emphasised the aggravating effect of participation in a wider criminal enterprise.
R v Welsh and Others [2014] EWCA Crim 1027	Guidance on differentiating roles and responsibilities among multiple offenders in serious drug offences; consideration of family impact as minimal at high criminality levels.	The court acknowledged the necessity of judgment in scaling sentences according to role and comparative significance, and minimized weight given to family consequences in serious cases.
R v Kavanagh [2021] EWCA Crim 1584	Consideration of intended or foreseeable harm in sentencing conspiracies that police operations have ended.	The court noted that sentencing must account for harm caused and harm intended or foreseeable, reflecting the ongoing nature of conspiracies.
R v Sanghera [2016] EWCA Crim 94	Limits on the weight given to personal mitigation in serious drug offences.	The court referenced this precedent in considering whether the sentencing judge gave excessive credit for personal mitigation.
R v Cuni [2018] EWCA Crim 600	Similar to Sanghera, guidance on mitigation weight in serious offences.	Supported the argument that personal mitigation should not unduly reduce sentences in serious drug cases.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the facts of the conspiracy, the roles of the individual defendants, and the substantial quantities of drugs involved, which far exceeded the guideline’s indicative amounts. It acknowledged the sentencing judge's detailed approach and the significant personal mitigation presented, including previous good character and expressions of remorse. However, the court found that the judge had not sufficiently uplifted the starting points to reflect the gravity of the large-scale commercial drug operation and the extensive quantities involved.

The court accepted that personal mitigation should carry less weight in serious drug offences but found the sentencing judge’s reductions appropriate given the circumstances. It also noted that comparisons with sentences imposed on related defendants by another judge were not binding but were a relevant context.

Regarding the appellant’s claim of manifest excessiveness, the court found no unfairness or manifest excess, noting that the appellant had admitted a leading role in significant events involving large quantities of drugs close to importation.

Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal for the appellant but dismissed the appeal, maintaining the sentence. Conversely, it granted leave to refer the other defendants’ sentences, finding all but one (the defendant with significant personal mitigation) unduly lenient and in need of increase.

Holding and Implications

The court held as follows:

• Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant, but the appeal was dismissed; the sentence was upheld as within the appropriate range.
• Leave to refer the sentences of the other five defendants was granted under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
• With the exception of one defendant whose substantial personal mitigation justified the sentence, the other four defendants’ sentences were quashed as unduly lenient and increased to higher custodial terms reflecting the scale of their involvement and quantities of drugs.
• An addendum corrected the sentence of one defendant, reducing it from 14 years to 11 years and 11 months concurrent, with credit for time subject to curfew.

The direct effect is that four defendants received increased sentences more commensurate with their roles and the vast quantities of drugs involved in the conspiracy. The court emphasized the seriousness of large-scale drug conspiracies and the limited weight that personal mitigation should carry in such contexts. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court applied existing sentencing principles and guidelines to ensure proportionality and consistency in sentencing.