Voka, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal brought by the Appellant against a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment imposed by Judge Jackson following pleas of guilty entered on 15 November 2024 to two counts of conspiracy to supply class A drugs (counts 1 and 3). At sentencing on 19 December 2024 Judge Jackson made an order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act prohibiting publication of the Appellant's sentence until the return of the last verdict in related proceedings; a retrial of co-defendants is proceeding and the prohibition remains in force.

During the period of count 1 (26 March 2020 to 31 May 2020) the Appellant acted as a trusted courier for an organised crime operation, using an EncroChat device under the handle "Handle A" and himself using "Handle B", transporting large multi-kilo quantities of cocaine across the country and collecting or delivering large sums of cash (frequently tens of thousands of pounds, up to about £160,000). The total amount of cocaine attributable to the Appellant's involvement was estimated at 63.5 kilograms; the learned sentencing judge attributed at least 40 kilos as passing through the Appellant's hands and noted the Appellant at one stage stored 10 kilos for others.

On 13 November 2020 the Appellant was tasked with transporting five kilos of cocaine to an individual (count 3). The Appellant was arrested on 18 December 2020 after a search of his home (outside The City) revealed (inter alia) 173 grams of cocaine, empty packets consistent with storage of cocaine, a false identity document bearing his photograph, and an outbuilding fitted for cannabis cultivation with 399 plants. He was charged on 19 December 2020 with offences including possession of cocaine with intent to supply, being concerned in supply of cannabis, production of cannabis and possession of a false document.

The Appellant was tried at The Crown Court at [City B] (the Warwick matter) in November 2022, convicted on 16 November 2022 and sentenced to a total of 10 years' imprisonment (lead offence: cultivation/production of cannabis). The Appellant's appeal against that 10-year sentence was dismissed by this court on 17 May 2023. The present Worcester proceedings proceeded separately; pleas of guilty to the conspiracies were entered in November 2024 and the 15-year sentence at issue was imposed in December 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the learned sentencing judge in the Worcester proceedings failed sufficiently to have regard to the Appellant's earlier sentence at The Crown Court at [City B] and thereby failed to give proper effect to the Sentencing Council's totality guideline.
2. Whether the 15-year sentence imposed in December 2024 is manifestly excessive when assessed against the totality of the Appellant's offending and compared to the sentence that could reasonably have been imposed had all offending been sentenced together in November 2022.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The learned judge failed to give sufficient regard to the 10-year sentence imposed at The Crown Court at [City B] for related offending and failed to reflect totality in sentencing for the Worcester offences.
• The learned judge did not adequately apply the Sentencing Council's totality guideline; the Appellant is effectively serving an aggregate sentence in excess of what would be just and proportionate.
• The Appellant asserted he is effectively serving a sentence of 25 years and that the overlap and sequencing of offending required different treatment; counsel asked the court to consider what the totality would have been if all offences had been sentenced together.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court adopted the following analytic steps based on the material in the judgment:

• The court calculated the practical effect of the 15-year sentence as imposed on 19 December 2024: by that date the Appellant had effectively served four years of the earlier 10-year sentence (including remand credit) and would, absent the Worcester sentence, have expected release on licence in December 2025. The 15-year sentence extended the Appellant's release date to June 2032, an extension of about six-and-a-half years from the date of sentence.
• The court converted that practical effect into an equivalent aggregate determinate sentence if imposed in November 2022: release in June 2032 would have required a determinate sentence equivalent to 23 years imposed in November 2022 (such that half-time release would align with the June 2032 date once remand credit is accounted for).
• The court rejected the Appellant's submission that the effective aggregate was 25 years, concluding the correct equivalent is 23 years based on the remand credit and temporal calculations in the judgment.
• The court then assessed whether a 23-year aggregate sentence would, in November 2022, have been manifestly excessive. It observed that eight of the ten years imposed at The Crown Court at [City B] related to cultivation of cannabis and that the additional Worcester offending overlapped only slightly with the Warwick offending.
• The court considered that, given the scale and distinct nature of the Worcester conspiracies (class A supply on a large scale involving EncroChat and a significant role for the Appellant), consecutive sentences for cultivation and conspiracy to supply class A drugs would have been open to the sentencing judge. The court endorsed Judge Jackson's view that an 18-year starting point for the conspiracies (reduced to 18 years after a modest plea discount) was appropriate.
• The court concluded that an additional five years on top of the 18-year equivalent would yield the 23-year aggregate and that such an aggregate, while at the upper end, would not have been manifestly excessive for the totality of offending.
• On that basis the court held that the 15-year sentence imposed in December 2024 did not produce a manifestly excessive overall sentence when assessed against totality, and the appeal must fail.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's challenge to the 15-year sentence; it held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive when the totality of the Appellant's offending and prior sentence were properly assessed and converted into an equivalent aggregate sentence.

Implications: The direct effect is that the 15-year sentence imposed by Judge Jackson stands. The opinion does not assert or establish any new legal precedent beyond the application of established totality principles to the facts; no broader legal changes were announced.