Blake & Ors, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 31 March 2025 at the Crown Court at The City, three individuals (two appellants and one applicant) were sentenced for roles in an enterprise to produce and supply large quantities of cocaine and cannabis and for associated firearms offences. The Applicant received a total sentence of 25 years' imprisonment. One Appellant received a total sentence of 8 years' imprisonment made up of consecutive and concurrent terms including statutory minimum terms for firearms offences. The other Appellant received an extended determinate sentence of 9 years (6 years custody with a 3-year extended licence period) for, inter alia, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life; concurrent shorter determinate sentences were imposed on other counts. That Appellant appeals by leave on the sole ground that there was no justification for the judge's finding that he was a dangerous offender and for imposing an extended sentence. The second Appellant appeals the sentence on the drugs offence, alleging insufficient credit for mitigation. The Applicant renews an application for leave to appeal sentence on grounds previously refused by a Single Judge.

The factual background as recorded by the court: the Applicant organised large-scale cannabis cultivation and was involved in the import and distribution of kilogram quantities of high-purity cocaine. He established multiple cannabis grows, rented properties, diverted electricity and equipped premises for cultivation. He involved two female associates (one of whom is the second Appellant and another co-defendant) in storage, processing and distribution activities. The second Appellant sorted and packaged large kilogram-sized quantities of cannabis, stored drugs and paraphernalia, and carried out deals; a firearm and ammunition were discovered hidden in her bedroom. The first Appellant's DNA was found on a modified prohibited pistol recovered at the second Appellant's address; searches of his residence revealed multiple prohibited firearms, body armour, another cannabis grow and cocaine.

Arrests followed in October 2022 after police attendance at the second Appellant's address and subsequent inquiries. The sentencing judge made findings as to roles, culpability and harm for each defendant, imposed the sentences described above, and gave reasons in open court. The appeals and renewed application proceeded to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge's finding that the Appellant who received an extended determinate sentence was a "dangerous offender" and the consequent imposition of an extended sentence were justified, having regard to the reasons given and the absence of a pre-sentence report or up‑to‑date psychiatric evidence.
2. Whether the second Appellant was afforded appropriate credit for personal mitigation and guilty plea when the judge reached the notional sentence after trial for the drugs offence (challenge to sentencing calculation/credit).
3. Whether the Applicant's sentence should be revisited on grounds of mis‑categorisation of his role (as a "leading role") in relation to the cocaine and insufficient regard to the principle of totality.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (extended sentence)

• The judge gave inadequate reasons for a finding of dangerousness and the extension of licence period.
• There was no pre-sentence report and no updated psychiatric evidence before the sentencing judge; subsequent psychiatric material indicates increased engagement with treatment and supervision.
• The Appellant had a history of schizophrenia and vulnerability, and may have been exploited; these factors undermine the conclusion that there was a real and ongoing risk justifying an extended sentence.

Appellant's Arguments (drugs sentence)

• Counsel relied on the appellant's coercive and controlling relationship, previous good character, and status as a single parent as substantial mitigation.
• The judge failed to give a clear explanation of how he reached a notional sentence of 4 years after trial for the drugs offence and thus failed properly to apply credit for mitigation and the guilty plea.

Applicant's Arguments (renewed application)

• The judge mischaracterised the Applicant's role in relation to the cocaine as a "leading role" rather than limiting that finding to the cannabis or otherwise overstating his role.
• Insufficient regard was paid to the principle of totality in aggregating the sentences; the overall 25-year sentence was challenged as excessive in aggregate.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the sentencing judge's findings and the arguments on appeal, addressing each main contention in turn.

On the dangerousness finding and extended sentence: the court noted the sentencing judge expressed concern about future risk and extended the licence period without detailed reasons. The court emphasised that when considering dangerousness it is common practice to obtain professional input (eg a probation report and/or psychiatric evidence) so the judge can assess both vulnerabilities and management strategies. The Court of Appeal accepted the force of defence submissions that, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the judge erred by reaching a dangerousness finding without adequate reasons and without the benefit of a pre-sentence report or updated psychiatric evidence. The appellate court considered the additional psychiatric material before it and concluded that, had the judge had that material, he might not have reached the same conclusion. For these reasons the court allowed the appeal on that ground, overturned the dangerousness finding and substituted a determinate sentence.

On the second Appellant's complaint about credit for mitigation on the drugs offence: the court observed the sentencing judge accepted significant mitigation overall (including coercive and controlling behaviour and personal circumstances) and substantially reduced the sentence he had in mind for the firearms offence as a result. The court found the sentencing judge did not clearly explain how he reached the notional 4-year figure for the drugs offence and that greater clarity would have been preferable. Nevertheless, the court undertook an overall assessment of totality and concluded that, in the context of the very serious combined offending and in light of the mitigation accepted by the judge, an aggregate sentence of 8 years was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

On the Applicant's renewed application: the court deferred to the trial judge's advantage in having presided over the trial and having given clear reasons for ascribing a leading role in respect of both cannabis and cocaine. The court rejected the submission that the judge was wrong to choose the cocaine count as the lead count or to reflect the wider criminality in elevating the tariff. On totality, the court concluded the judge was not wrong to give only a 4-year overall reduction from the aggregate of the independent tariffs; the resulting sentence was just and proportionate. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED in respect of the Appellant sentenced to an extended determinate sentence: the Court of Appeal overturned the finding of dangerousness and substituted a determinate custodial sentence of 6 years' imprisonment.

APPEAL DISMISSED in respect of the second Appellant: the Court of Appeal declined to disturb the aggregate sentence of 8 years' imprisonment (including consecutive and concurrent terms) and found the totality and sentencing exercise were not manifestly excessive.

APPLICATION REFUSED in respect of the Applicant: the Court of Appeal refused the renewed application for leave to appeal and upheld the total sentence of 25 years' imprisonment.

Implications: the immediate practical effect is the substitution of a determinate 6-year custodial sentence for the Appellant whose extended sentence and dangerousness finding were set aside. The other sentences and the overall outcomes for the second Appellant and the Applicant remain in force. The court did not purport to establish new sentencing principles; its decisions were applied to the facts and materials before it, including consideration of procedural fairness where dangerousness findings are made without contemporaneous professional reports.