Mir, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was sentenced for participation in an organised crime group active between 1 March 2020 and 30 June 2020. The offending involved conspiracy to source, acquire, and supply Class A drugs, specifically cocaine and heroin, as well as laundering proceeds from these activities. Evidence against the Appellant was derived entirely from EncroChat encrypted phone messages, which indicated wholesale quantities of drugs and money exchanges in £10,000 increments. The Appellant was arrested on 10 March 2021, and a search of his home yielded no direct evidence of drug supply involvement. The Appellant did not enter a plea in the Magistrates' Court but pleaded guilty at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) in the Crown Court. Although a basis of plea had been uploaded earlier, it was not pursued at sentencing. The sentencing judge had presided over the trial of an acquitted co-conspirator and was thus well placed to assess the Appellant's role.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the upward adjustment of the sentence on count 1 to account for offending on counts 2 and 4 was excessive and disproportionate, violating the principle of totality.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The three counts arose from the same time period and course of conduct.
• The Appellant engaged in identical activities involving two different Class A drugs rather than one.
• The money laundering was a necessary consequence of the conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
• The mathematical calculation for sentence adjustment resulted in a sentence that was 50% of the sentence on count 1 alone.
• The adjustment negated both mitigation and the reduction for a guilty plea, rendering the sentence manifestly excessive.

Court's Consideration of Submissions

The court acknowledged multiple ways to structure the sentence but emphasized the overriding principle of totality. The court referred to the Guideline on Totality, which requires that the overall sentence reflect all offending behaviour with reference to harm, culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors, and be just and proportionate. The court noted that concurrent sentences often require upward adjustment to reflect totality.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the totality of the offending, highlighting the sophistication of the EncroChat operation involving at least 10 kilograms of Class A drugs. The Appellant's role extended beyond supply to laundering proceeds and directing others, demonstrating substantial influence within the conspiracy. The court considered that the sentencing judge might have justifiably adopted a higher starting point of 14 years for counts 1 and 2, given the commercial scale and the Appellant's organisational role. It was also noted that the one-third discount for the guilty plea was generous, as no plea or indication of plea was made in the Magistrates' Court. Consequently, the court concluded that a total sentence of 18 years before plea discount was not manifestly excessive in light of the totality principle.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The decision upholds the total sentence imposed, affirming that the upward adjustment to reflect the totality of offending was appropriate and not excessive. This ruling directly affects the parties by maintaining the custodial term but does not establish new legal precedent.