Factual and Procedural Background
This was an Attorney General’s Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 concerning a sentence imposed on Defendant for conspiracy to supply cannabis, mobile phones and other electronic equipment by drone into a prison. [1]
The Crown Court imposed 13 months’ imprisonment for the cannabis count, a concurrent nine-month sentence for the equipment count, and activated consecutively a 56-week suspended sentence, producing a total of approximately two years and two months. [1][2]
Defendant travelled on two occasions to collect the drone, cannabis and equipment, and took them to a location within range of a prison. The attempt was abandoned after Defendant became aware of police surveillance and fled, but Defendant was subsequently arrested. [3][4][5][6][7]
After two ineffective plea and trial preparation hearings, Defendant pleaded guilty at a further case management hearing and the case was adjourned for sentence. [8]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence imposed for the conspiracy was unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. [1]
- What sentence properly reflected the culpability, harm, aggravating features, equipment-related offending and totality of the offending. [9][10][11]
Arguments of the Parties
Attorney General’s Arguments
- The sentence failed adequately to reflect the overall criminality, including the seriousness and aggravating features of the cannabis offending and the additional equipment offending. [9]
- The offending was sophisticated and involved planning, repeated travel, a dedicated telephone, a hotel booking, transport of the drone and use of a remote location. [12][13]
- The quantity and prison value of the cannabis, and the intended bulk supply, demonstrated substantial harm. [13][14]
- The adverse effects of mobile phones and dongles in prisons warranted a substantial uplift. [15]
Defendant’s Arguments
- Defendant had played an extremely limited role and had acted under direction. [16]
- There was no evidence that Defendant controlled or piloted the drone, because no control device was found. [16]
- The absence of a wider known association with another participant supported the contention that Defendant’s role was limited to this occasion. [17]
- The offending was short in duration, the drugs were imported in bulk rather than packaged for individual sale, there was no evidence of financial gain, and Defendant’s vulnerability and drug use reduced culpability. [18]
- Defendant’s guilty plea and character references were relied on as mitigation. [18]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|
| R v Akhtar [2018] EWCA Crim 754 |
Drugs and illicit mobile phones in prisons seriously undermine prison order and security; deterrence is important. The drug-supply guideline may be considered, although prison-related offending warrants a significantly higher sentence. Supply of six miniature mobile phones was described as warranting a notional sentence near the two-year maximum. [19][20][21][22][23][24] |
The Court treated Defendant’s role as significant, held that the drug offending alone warranted a sentence towards the upper end of the category 3 significant-role range, and considered the equipment offending to require a sentence near the statutory maximum. [25][10] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered Defendant’s role significant because Defendant made repeated journeys, arranged transport, used a dedicated telephone and took the drone and contraband to a location within range of the prison. [26][27][25]
The Court held that it was unnecessary to determine who would operate the drone. Taking it to the launch location was an important part of the conspiracy, even if another person was intended to pilot it. [16][27]
The Court rejected the submission that the absence of a wider conspiracy reduced the significance of Defendant’s role. The role involved a very significant degree of culpability in attempting to introduce drugs, phones and dongles into prison. [17][25]
The Court regarded the prison context as materially aggravating. Drugs and electronic equipment introduced into prisons undermine security, facilitate criminal activity and create risks to staff and prisoners. [28][20][21][22]
For the cannabis offending alone, the appropriate sentence after trial was towards the upper end of the category 3 significant-role range, whose upper limit was three years. For the phones, dongles and associated equipment alone, the appropriate sentence was close to the two-year maximum. [23][29][24][25][10]
The Court considered the identified aggravating features significant and the mitigation of limited weight. Applying totality and allowing 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea, it concluded that the appropriate sentence was at least three years before credit, resulting in 27 months’ imprisonment. [10][11]
Holding and Implications
Leave was granted and the sentence was increased as unduly lenient. The sentence on count 1 was quashed and replaced with 27 months’ imprisonment. [30][31]
The concurrent sentence on count 2 and the consecutive activation of the 56-week suspended sentence remained unchanged. The total sentence therefore became 27 months plus 56 weeks, approximately three years and three months’ imprisonment. [31][32]
The opinion identifies no broader implications beyond the direct effect on Defendant and does not state that a new precedent was established.