Annotated and Anonymised Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment addresses criminal convictions and subsequent appeals arising from a multi-defendant Crown Court trial. Three defendants were tried and sentenced for conspiracies relating to the large-scale supply of Class A drugs, possession and trading of firearms and ammunition, and related offences. The trial evidence included messages and photographs recovered from EncroChat devices, mobile phone and ANPR data, and physical items recovered during a police search of a property. Two defendants were convicted after trial; a third entered guilty pleas on a basis. All three were sentenced on a later date and each sought leave to appeal sentence; one defendant sought renewal of leave to appeal conviction following a prior refusal and an extension of time.

Key procedural milestones (anonymised):

• Initial pleas/convictions at Crown Court and later trial convictions for two defendants (trial and plea dates noted in the opinion).
• Sentencing on a later date by the trial judge, with detailed sentencing remarks and application of sentencing guidelines.
• Post-sentencing appeals: each defendant obtained limited leave to appeal sentence from a Single Judge; one defendant sought to renew an earlier refused application for leave to appeal conviction and sought an extension of time.
• The appellate court (decision delivered by Judge Choudhury) dealt with the renewal of the conviction appeal and the sentence appeals, adjusting sentences on totality grounds where appropriate.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the renewal of leave to appeal conviction should be granted in respect of the issue that the jury may have been misled by the judge's direction about an agreed factual statement concerning the electricity supply at the searched property (the renewal application and extension of time were contested).
2. Whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly excessive by reason of insufficient regard to the totality principle when consecutive sentences were imposed for firearms and drugs offences, and whether reductions for totality were required for each appellant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant B's Arguments (conviction renewal)

• Appellant B's counsel submitted that the jury's query about visible electrical indicators on video evidence showed that the jury perceived an inconsistency with the Agreed Fact stating that "the power to the property had been switched off at the mains." Counsel argued that the jury may have been misled into rejecting Appellant B's defence that the flat was rented to a third party and that an active electricity connection would be essential to support that defence.
• It was submitted that the jury treated the electricity issue as significant (citing timing of jury notes and the proximity of the judge's direction to the verdict) and that the judge's direction to accept the agreed fact as accurate may have caused the jury to reach a detrimental factual conclusion about who had use of the flat.

Appellant A and Appellant C's Arguments (sentence appeals)

• Appellant A's counsel submitted that the imposition of consecutive sentences for drugs and firearms offences, without meaningful reduction for totality, produced an aggregate sentence that was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the overall criminality.
• Appellant C's appeal against sentence relied on the contention that the trial judge failed to make sufficient discounting or reduction under the totality principle when fixing consecutive sentences (Appellant C had already received substantial reductions for early guilty plea).

Respondent / Crown position (as recited in the opinion)

• The Crown relied on a combination of EncroChat material, attribution evidence (including use of names in messages, location data, ANPR, photographs), admissions or guilty pleas by co-defendants, and physical items seized during a search of the property to prove the defendants' involvement in the conspiracies.
• The Crown opposed the renewal of leave to appeal conviction and maintained that any issue about the agreed fact was marginal and could not render the conviction unsafe given the cumulative attribution and co-location evidence presented at trial.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court's analysis is divided between the renewal of the conviction appeal (Appellant B) and the sentence appeals (each appellant):

Conviction renewal (Appellant B)

1. The court examined the specific contention that the judge's response to the jury's question about observed electrical indicators in the video caused the jury to accept an erroneous factual basis that was detrimental to Appellant B.
2. The court noted the precise wording of the Agreed Fact: that "the power to the property had been switched off at the mains, as such the electric household appliances (including the fridge) were not in normal use." The court emphasised that this wording did not assert a permanent disconnection of the supply at source (i.e., it did not state that electricity was completely unavailable at all times).
3. The court considered whether the jury could reasonably have been misled into concluding the flat could not have been rented or occupied because of the agreed fact. The court held that informing the jury that power had been switched off at the mains at the time of the search did not undermine Appellant B's account that the flat had been rented or capable of being rented at earlier times.
4. The court analysed the timing of jury notes and directions and concluded it was speculative to infer that the electricity point played any central role in the jury's verdict. The jury had sent an earlier request for a better-quality video and a subsequent question about observed lights; the judge correctly refused to adduce further evidence to the jury and directed them to accept the agreed facts as accurate for the condition of the flat when the police arrived.
5. The court held that, even if the agreed fact were slightly imprecise (marginally erroneous), the corrected factual position would not alter the material substance that household appliances were not in normal use when the police searched the property. More importantly, the agreed fact related to the condition at the time of the police search (months after the relevant EncroChat period), and therefore had only marginal relevance to the question of who had use of the flat during the period when the EncroChat messages were exchanged.
6. The court concluded the conviction was not rendered unsafe by this issue, refused the extension of time for renewal of leave, and dismissed the conviction renewal application as futile.

Sentence appeals (totality principle)

1. The court framed the core sentencing question as whether the trial judge had given insufficient effect to the totality principle when imposing consecutive sentences for distinct offences (drugs and firearms) and, if so, what adjustment was required to reach a just and proportionate aggregate sentence.
2. The court observed that the trial judge expressly referenced totality in sentencing remarks and stated that had the judge been sentencing for the drugs or firearms offences alone the individual sentences would have been higher, implying some adjustment had been made. However, the judge did not quantify any reduction or explicitly state the extent of any downwards adjustment for totality.
3. The appellate court analysed categorisation and starting points applied by the trial judge for each offence type and the aggravating/mitigating features relied upon. It noted that in several of the individual offence assessments the imposed sentences lay at or near the top of the applicable range, and that there was no clear express reduction shown in the reasons to account for totality.
4. The court concluded that, on analysis, there appeared to have been an inadequate adjustment for totality in each case. The court assessed that a modest, specified reduction in the sentences was appropriate to achieve an aggregate sentence reflecting the totality of criminality:
• For Appellant A the appropriate adjustment was a reduction of one year on each of the principal consecutive counts (quashing the 12-year firearms sentence and the two 16-year drug sentences and substituting 11 years and 15 years respectively) producing a revised total of 26 years' imprisonment.
• For Appellant B the court concluded a one-year reduction on each principal count was warranted (quashing the 7-year firearms counts and the 15-year drug counts and substituting 6 years and 14 years respectively) producing a revised total of 20 years' imprisonment.
• For Appellant C (who had pleaded guilty and received adjustments for plea), the court found that a notional reduction of one year on each of the notional sentences (before plea discount) was appropriate, which when applied and after plea discounts produced a revised total of 14 years' imprisonment (the court specified the quashed and substituted individual sentences and explained the arithmetic to the revised aggregate).
5. The court emphasised that these adjustments were modest and intended to give effect to totality principles while respecting the seriousness of the offending and the initial assessments of culpability and harm.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

• The court refused the renewal of leave and extension of time for Appellant B's conviction appeal. The conviction was held to be safe and the renewal was refused.
• The court allowed each appellant's appeal against sentence to the limited extent of reducing the sentences for totality as specified by the court. The court quashed certain sentences imposed by the trial judge and substituted the reduced sentences, producing revised aggregate terms for each appellant:
• Appellant A: aggregate sentence reduced from 28 years to 26 years (substituted individual terms: 11 years on the firearms count and 15 years on each of the principal drug counts as specified in the opinion).
• Appellant B: aggregate sentence reduced from 22 years to 20 years (substituted individual terms: 6 years on the firearms counts and 14 years on the principal drug counts as specified in the opinion).
• Appellant C: aggregate sentence reduced from 15 years 4 months (notional 23 years before plea discount) to 14 years (substituted individual terms and application of plea discounts are set out in the opinion).

Implications:

• Direct effect: the sentences of the three appellants were reduced as set out above. The conviction renewal for Appellant B was refused and remains intact.
• Broader implications: the decision illustrates appellate scrutiny of sentencing where consecutive terms are imposed and the necessity for sentencers to demonstrate, where appropriate, the quantum of any reduction made to give effect to totality. The opinion does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond the application of established totality principles to the facts of these cases.

Anonymisation note: Personal names, addresses and other identifying particulars in the original opinion have been replaced with generic labels and placeholders consistent throughout this summary to preserve anonymity while accurately reflecting the court's reasoning and orders as recorded in the provided opinion.

End of summary.