Smith, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal, with leave, by the Appellant against a custodial sentence imposed after his guilty pleas to three conspiracy offences concerning the supply of controlled drugs. The Appellant participated in organised supply conspiracies led by a Defendant who absconded and remains at large. The conspiracies operated via multiple telephone lines that sent bulk advertisements for controlled drugs, using coded language to indicate availability and quality.

From June to December 2023 the principal base of operations was at [Number] Main Street. After police intervention in December 2023 the operation relocated to another address. Drugs were stored at various locations including the Appellant's home, where substantial quantities were found. The Appellant assisted in preparing and weighing drugs for onward supply and maintained direct contact with other Defendants, including a neighbour Defendant.

Surveillance and analysis of messages showed repeated communications establishing the Appellant's active involvement. On 21 March 2024 warrants were executed at the Appellant's address, resulting in recovery of significant quantities of controlled drugs and paraphernalia: 701 gms of cocaine (approx. 80% purity), 2,812 MDMA tablets, 167 gms of an MDMA/ketamine mix, and 2.53 kgs of ketamine, alongside packaging, scales and other items. Various bags from retail companies (redacted here as Company A and Company B) and a safe containing drug items were recovered. The Appellant made comments implicating a Defendant at arrest but provided no comment in interview.

On 21 November 2024 at The City Crown Court the Appellant was sentenced, after guilty pleas to three counts of conspiracy, to concurrent terms resulting in an overall sentence of 10 years and 5 months' imprisonment. A statutory victim surcharge and orders for forfeiture and destruction of drugs and paraphernalia were imposed. The Appellant received 5% credit for guilty pleas, reduced because pleas were entered after a Newton hearing at which a basis of plea advanced by the Appellant was rejected.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the overall sentence of 10 years and 5 months imposed on the Appellant was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in arriving at the pre-credit starting point or failed to give proper weight to the Appellant's personal mitigation when calculating the sentence prior to applying plea credit.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The overall sentence is manifestly excessive and should be quashed and substituted with a sentence reflecting the Appellant's culpability and personal circumstances.
• The sentencing judge reached a sentence on the principal counts that was too high before applying plea credit and failed to give proper weight to mitigation: absence of previous convictions, age (38), strong employment record, significant family responsibilities, addiction-driven involvement, and positive rehabilitation in custody (drug-free and mentoring role).
• Comparative disparity: a co-defendant (described as having a more central role) received a higher pre-credit sentence, and the Appellant's pre-credit position (11 years offered) did not sufficiently recognise his lesser role and good character.

Appellee's Arguments

• The offending fell into category 1 ("significant role") within the sentencing guideline due to large-scale, high-purity kilo quantities and the Appellant's overall function in the chain, with expectation of significant financial advantage; the categorisation was accepted by the sentencing judge and is not challenged.
• The nature, scale and organised character of the conspiracies justified substantial custodial sentences and the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the sentencing judge's factual findings about the Appellant's role: storage of large quantities at his home; assistance in preparing and weighing drugs; active supply to end users and directing others to suppliers; direct contact with key Defendants; financial links; and recruitment of others. The sentencing judge categorised the offending as category 1 ("significant role") under the applicable guideline—a categorisation uncontested on appeal.

The court observed that the guideline provided a single starting point for the relevant category (10 years). The judge increased the starting point by one year after considering aggravating (length of involvement over 11 months and participation in three conspiracies) and mitigating features (no previous convictions, drug addiction and personal difficulties, limited weight given to mitigation, positive references and evidence of being drug-free on remand). The judge then applied 5% credit for plea, which had been reduced because the Appellant's guilty pleas were entered after a Newton hearing that rejected his proposed basis of plea.

The court considered remarks by Judge Leeming on the organised nature and social harm of the conspiracies, noting that such offending warrants substantial sentences. It rejected the Appellant's contention that the judge failed properly to weigh personal mitigation or that there was unjustified disparity with the sentence of a co-defendant, observing that the co-defendant's offending was assessed at the top of the same, narrow category. Given there was no dispute about the plea credit, the appellate court concluded the sentence was an appropriate exercise of sentencing discretion and not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The appellate court dismissed the Appellant's appeal and upheld the sentence of 10 years and 5 months' imprisonment (concurrent counts), together with the statutory victim surcharge and forfeiture/destruction orders.

Implications: The direct effect is that the original sentence and ancillary orders remain in force. The opinion does not purport to create any new precedent beyond affirming that, on these facts and within the applicable guideline category, the sentencing judge's adjustments and application of plea credit produced an appropriate sentence.