Weston, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal from a sentence imposed by Judge Kamill in the Crown Court. The Appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and was sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment on 13 December 2024. The Court of Appeal (Judges Popplewell, Steyn and Eyre) heard the appeal on 22 May 2026.

On 12 November 2021 a container unloaded at The City port contained at least 780 kg of cocaine at 92% purity. The consignment was divided into holdalls each of 39–45 kg. Police intercepted and seized the consignment after an attempted unloading. The Appellant was in The City area from 15 to 26 November 2021, described himself as "on standby" and awaiting instructions, and was sentenced on the basis that he would have collected one holdall containing 39 kg of cocaine. He pleaded guilty on a basis accepted by the prosecution that he had a significant but not leading role, acting as a courier under others' instructions.

The Appellant's involvement came to light after his arrest on 13 December 2021 for a separate matter in which he was caught handing over 20 kg of high-purity cocaine; phone analysis linked him to the November 2021 conspiracy. He had been sentenced on the December 2021 offence in July 2022 to six years and nine months' imprisonment (after plea credit applied to a notional eight and a half years). In the present case Judge Kamill took a notional sentence of 20 years, applied a 20% discount for plea, and imposed 16 years' imprisonment. The Appellant appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the notional sentence of 20 years before credit for the guilty plea was excessive given the Appellant's role as a courier acting under direction.
2. Whether the judge should have taken account of the details of the confiscation order made in respect of the earlier sentence and treated it as indicative of the Appellant's lifestyle.
3. Whether there was unjustifiable disparity between the Appellant's sentence and that of the Co-defendant.
4. Whether the judge failed to apply the principle of totality in light of the sentence the Appellant was already serving for the December 2021 offence.
5. Whether delay between seizure of evidence and charge entitled the Appellant to reduction in sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The notional 20-year starting point was "far too high" given the Appellant's courier role under direction.
• The judge wrongly used the earlier confiscation order as evidence of the Appellant's lifestyle and as an aggravating factor.
• There was significant disparity between the Appellant's sentence and the Co-defendant's sentence despite similar notional starting points.
• The judge failed to apply totality, given the Appellant was already serving a sentence for the December 2021 offending.
• The prosecution delay between seizure of phones and charging (evidence available December 2021; charged March 2024) should have been reflected in sentence mitigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the appropriate notional sentence by reference to the drug sentencing guideline. Category 1 indicative quantity for cocaine is 5 kg; the Appellant's intended collection of 39 kg was nearly eight times that amount. The guideline permits sentences of "20 years and above" where the operation is on the most serious and commercial scale, depending on role. The court accepted that the conspiracy was conducted on the most serious/commercial scale and that, although a courier, the Appellant was a trusted operative entrusted with collecting a large quantity and had an expectation of significant reward.

On that factual basis the court agreed a substantial uplift above the category 1 range was required. However, the court concluded that the judge's chosen notional sentence of 20 years was manifestly excessive for the Appellant's role. The court substituted a notional sentence of 16 years (a substantial uplift from the top of the "significant role" category range) and, after allowing credit for the guilty plea, reached an effective sentence of 12 years and nine months' imprisonment.

On totality, the court applied the guideline's approach: first determine the appropriate sentence for the instant offence, then exercise discretion whether to make further allowance for the earlier sentence. The judge had not ordered consecutive sentences; by operation of s384 of the Sentencing Act 2020 the sentences run concurrently from imposition, so no additional reduction was required. The court also held the judge was entitled to consider whether the November 2021 offending formed part of a pattern and to take the December 2021 offending into account as confirming that assessment; doing so was not inconsistent with the basis of plea.

As to disparity with the Co-defendant, the court applied R v Fawcett and found no error: the judge had adopted the same notional starting point but took a merciful approach in the Co-defendant's case for reasons explained (impact on children, prison conduct), which did not demonstrate a failure in administration of justice. As to delay, the court followed R v McGoldrick and held that investigatory delay inherent in serious organised crime investigations did not warrant mitigation here.

Holding and Implications

ALLOW IN PART

Holding: The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting a notional sentence of 16 years (resulting, after credit for guilty plea, in an imprisonment term of 12 years and nine months) for the sentence of 16 years previously imposed.

Implications: The direct effect is substitution of the Appellant's sentence with one of 12 years and nine months' imprisonment after plea credit. The decision adjusts the notional starting point for this Appellant's role but does not purport to establish a new general precedent beyond the application of existing guidelines and authorities cited.