Summary of Opinion — Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant appealed against concurrent sentences of eight years and three months' imprisonment imposed after conviction for being concerned in the supply of class A drugs on two separate indictments (the "F line" and the "Oscar line"). The Appellant pleaded guilty to the F line at a plea and trial preparation hearing in August 2023 and later changed his plea to guilty on the Oscar line indictment in August 2024. The F line operated from 1 January to 28 June 2023 and supplied crack cocaine and heroin; the Appellant was described in the evidence as the "captain" of that line. The Oscar line operated for a four month period (March to June 2023) and involved powdered cocaine; the Appellant also ran that line and obtained supplies from a co-defendant.

Police investigations involved multiple vehicle stops, searches of addresses, seizure of cash and designer goods, and examination of mobile phones. Messages and images recovered were extensive: the F line phones sent hundreds to thousands of messages and thousands of calls per month; mobile analysis and expert review led to an agreed attribution of two and a half kilogrammes of crack cocaine and heroin to the F line. The Oscar line phone data and images (including photographs appearing to show kilogramme blocks and smaller quantities) and messages indicating significant sums of money were in issue.

Newton hearings were arranged. Experts agreed the F line totals (2.5 kg) so no Newton hearing was required for that line; the Oscar line proceeded to a Newton hearing on contested quantity issues. The sentencing judge (Judge Henderson at first instance) conducted the Newton hearing, made findings about quantities and roles across the two conspiracies, and imposed an aggregate sentence which, before plea credit, the judge described as 11 years, reduced by one quarter for plea to eight years and three months. The Appellant appealed on multiple grounds including challenge to the judge's factual findings about quantity and categorisation under the sentencing guideline and on disparity and mitigation grounds.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge was entitled to treat the Appellant's offending (viewed overall) as falling within category 1 harm under the sentencing guideline notwithstanding the agreed attribution of no more than 2.5 kg to the F line.
2. Whether the judge erred in concluding that the Oscar line involved quantities amounting to about a kilogramme a month (and/or in treating the relevant period as extending beyond the indictment period), contrary to evidence relied on by the defence.
3. Whether the disparity between the Appellant's sentence and that of a co-defendant (the alleged supplier) was such that it rendered the Appellant's sentence unjust.
4. Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigation (youth and lack of relevant convictions).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Gardiner)

• The judge was wrong to categorise the Appellant's overall offending as category 1 where the agreed F line quantity was no more than 2.5 kg (ground 1).
• The Oscar line assessment was flawed: (a) it should be limited to the four month indictment period; (b) the prosecution expert accepted the line was in its infancy in June 2023 and quantities were small; (c) messages/images could not be reliably attributed to the Oscar line rather than the F line; (d) there was no evidence a kilogramme block had been supplied; (e) references to large sums (eg £32,000 or £14,000) could not be attributed to the Appellant or to the Oscar line (ground 2).
• The sentence disparity with the co-defendant alleged to be supplier (relying on R v Fawcett and ors) could not be justified; the Appellant's sentence was significantly longer than co-defendants in comparable positions (ground 3).
• Insufficient weight was afforded to mitigation (youth, lack of relevant convictions) (ground 4).

Respondent's Arguments (Attorney Vollans)

• The judge was not constrained by the experts' concession on the F line when assessing the Appellant's overall offending; the court could assess images and messages in the round and reach a real-world conclusion about quantities on the Oscar line.
• Photographs and other material (including apparent kilogramme blocks, quarter-kilo items and images of cash) and messages showing substantial profits supported the judge's findings that the Oscar line involved multiple kilogrammes.
• The judge permissibly took a global approach to sentencing both conspiracies together and adopted a pragmatic approach to plea credit (a full quarter reduction overall) despite different plea timings and Newton hearing outcomes.
• Even if both lines were treated as category 2, the aggregate offending and the Appellant's role justified the overall starting point and the sentence imposed; the disparity argument was misconceived given differences in indictment periods and roles.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court (Judge Eady delivering the approved judgment for the panel) examined the material available to the sentencing judge at the Newton hearing and at sentence. The prosecution's presentation included dated images (purporting to show kilogramme blocks, quarter-kilogramme quantities and street wraps), call and message data, and messages indicating substantial cash takings. The court emphasised that the sentencing judge was entitled to assess the evidence in the round and was not confined to the expert concession about the F line where other material cast light on quantities and profitability.

The court accepted the sentencing judge's approach of limiting to material closely connected in time to the indictment periods but noted the judge could use some material outside the strict period if it illuminated activity within the period. The judge's findings—that the Appellant was dealing "something like a kilogram a month" across the overlapping operations—were supported by the combined images and messaging evidence and by the absence of explanatory evidence from the Appellant or implicated co-defendants at the Newton hearing.

The court further considered the judge's plea credit decision and concluded the judge had taken a pragmatic global approach to crediting pleas across overlapping conspiracies; that approach did not indicate acceptance of the Appellant's Newton basis. On totality, the court held that even if each line were treated separately within category 2, the additional offending and the Appellant's initiative in establishing a second line justified a significant uplift, such that the aggregate pre-plea starting point of 11 years was not manifestly excessive.

On disparity, the court found the comparison with the co-defendant alleged to be supplier was misplaced because that co-defendant's sentence related to a limited indictment period; the sentencing judge had not erred in principle and no injustice under Fawcett arose. Finally, the court concluded the sentencing judge had expressly considered mitigation (youth, lack of relevant antecedents, delay and family circumstances) but was entitled to conclude those features were outweighed by the seriousness of the Appellant's central and overlapping roles in two conspiracies.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal and upheld the concurrent sentences, the effective sentence remaining eight years and three months' imprisonment after plea credit.

Implications: The decision affirms that a sentencing court may assess overlapping conspiracies in the round using images, messages and financial indicators in addition to expert attributions; a global approach to totality and pragmatic plea credit across overlapping counts is permissible. No new legal precedent was established beyond application of existing principles to the facts; the direct effect is that the Appellant's sentence is upheld.