Anonymised Summary of Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The judgment is an appeal against sentence heard with leave granted by a single judge. Two individuals (hereafter Appellant 1 and Appellant 2) pleaded guilty to multiple counts of conspiracy to supply controlled drugs across Classes A, B and C, with Appellant 1 also pleading guilty to an additional count of conspiracy to supply a psychoactive substance and one count of conspiracy to evade the prohibition on importation of a controlled drug.

The conspiracies operated from on or about 1 November 2020 until 20 October 2023. The two appellants were the only participants. They ran a commercial drug supply operation using business cards and dedicated telephone lines. Evidence recovered during the investigation showed they could source and supply Class A drugs (including cocaine, heroin, MDMA and magic mushrooms) in kilogram quantities at times, and also supplied significant quantities of cannabis, ketamine, and benzodiazepine tablets. Some cannabis appears to have been imported from the United States — inferred from manner of purchase, imperial weight references and a reference to "Cali" — and the appellants collected at least one consignment from an airport.

The appellants were arrested on multiple occasions during the investigation (notably on 18 November 2022, 13 May 2023 and 19 October 2023). On those occasions police recovered drugs of high purity (including cocaine at circa 86% and 83% purity), substantial quantities of various controlled drugs, business cards, mobile telephones, cash and other indicia of commercial dealing. After earlier arrests the appellants continued to operate the enterprise using new business cards and numbers. Both appellants were in their mid-20s and had no previous convictions.

Sentencing at first instance: the trial judge imposed a sentence on the count of conspiracy to supply cocaine (count 1) intended to reflect each appellant's overall culpability and imposed shorter concurrent sentences on other counts. The original sentence on count 1 was 16 years' imprisonment for Appellant 1 and 14 years' imprisonment for Appellant 2. The appellants appealed those sentences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in the sequence of applying a reduction for guilty pleas before applying an uplift to reflect the totality of each appellant's offending (i.e., whether the uplift reflecting overall criminality should have been applied before the guilty plea discount).
2. Whether the sentences as imposed on count 1 were manifestly excessive given the correct application of sentencing principles (including categorisation under the Sentencing Council guideline and appropriate adjustments for aggravating features and guilty pleas).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• Both appellants contended that the judge applied the guilty plea discount at the wrong stage. They submitted that the correct sequence was to determine and apply any uplift to the sentence on count 1 to reflect total criminality and then apply the guilty plea discount to that uplifted sentence, rather than applying the discount first and then increasing the sentence.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any opposing or prosecuting submissions on the sequencing issue.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court (Judge Wall delivering the opinion) undertook the following analytical steps, strictly reflecting the content of the opinion:

1. Validation of factual findings: the court accepted the trial judge's findings that each appellant had played a leading role in the conspiracy, given the evidence that each was involved in sourcing large quantities of drugs, understood the scale of the operations and stood to profit substantially.
2. Appropriateness of categorisation and starting point: it was accepted that placing the cocaine conspiracy within category 1 of the Sentencing Council's definitive guideline was proper, given the judge's inference that the conspiracy involved the supply of more than five kilograms of cocaine. The starting point for category 1 (14 years) and the judge's step up to 15 years to reflect aggravating features (persistence after arrests, high cocaine purity, greed, and targeting students) were not criticised by the court.
3. Necessity of an uplift to reflect totality: the court agreed that the sentencing judge was obliged to increase the sentence on count 1 significantly so that that sentence reflected the totality of each appellant's criminality and not merely their role in the cocaine supply. The appellate court accepted the trial judge's conclusions as to the scale of uplift that would have been proportionate had there been trials (an increase of six years for Appellant 1 and four years for Appellant 2) to reflect the variety and quantity of other drugs involved, including imported cannabis in respect of Appellant 1.
4. Identified error in sequencing: the court determined that the trial judge applied the guilty plea discount before applying the uplift for totality. That sequencing had the effect that no credit for guilty pleas was given in relation to the uplifted element of the offending. The appellate court concluded that the correct approach would have been to apply the uplift to count 1 to reflect totality first, and then apply the guilty plea discount to the resulting sentence.
5. Effect of the error: applying the uplift after the guilty plea reduction produced sentences that the appellate court considered manifestly excessive. The court therefore found that the appropriate remedy was to quash the sentences on count 1 and to substitute revised custodial terms that applied the correct sequencing.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The appeals were allowed to the extent of quashing the sentences on count 1 and substituting revised custodial terms to reflect the correct order of applying an uplift for totality prior to granting the guilty plea discount.

Specifically, the court substituted the following sentences on count 1:

• For Appellant 1: sentence on count 1 replaced with 14 years' imprisonment.
• For Appellant 2: sentence on count 1 replaced with 12 years and eight months' imprisonment.

The substituted sentences on count 1 were to be the appellants' overall custodial terms; all other shorter concurrent sentences imposed at first instance remained unaltered.

Implications: The decision directly alters the custodial terms of the two appellants by recalculating sentences so that the uplift for total criminality is applied before the guilty plea discount. The opinion does not purport to establish a novel legal principle beyond the application of established sentencing sequencing in the particular facts of these cases. No broader precedent was discussed in the provided text.

All personal names, addresses and other directly identifying information in the original opinion have been anonymised in this summary in accordance with the provided instructions. The substance of the court's reasoning and the factual findings are presented only to the extent they appear in the provided opinion.

Presiding Judge: Judge Wall