We represented a client who appeared before Canterbury Crown Court for his role in the cross-border importation of more than 20 kilograms of high-purity cocaine. Despite the prosecution seeking a substantial increase on the sentencing guideline starting point, the court ultimately imposed a sentence of 6 years and 8 months' imprisonment, significantly below the sentence sought by the prosecution.

Background

Our client was charged in connection with the importation of a substantial quantity of Class A drugs. He initially pleaded not guilty but later entered a guilty plea after further evidence, including telephone evidence, was served.

The prosecution characterised our client as occupying a high-level significant role within the operation, describing him as a trusted "lieutenant". They relied on numerous aggravating features and argued that the sentencing court should move above the guideline starting point of 10 years' imprisonment.

In support of their position, the prosecution relied on the authorities of R v Welsh & Ors [2014] EWCA Crim 1027 and R v Sanghera & Ors [2016] EWCA Crim 94, arguing that the quantity of drugs involved justified a substantial increase in sentence. they also relied on R v Corrigan [2024] EWCA 215, contending that the court should sentence outside the Sentencing Guidelines altogether.

Our Involvement

We challenged the prosecution's assessment of his role within the offending. The defence argued that the client should properly be regarded as having high-level lesser role and that there were no aggravating features warranting an uplift in sentence.

The defence case was that the client was effectively acting as a courier who was being directed by others rather than exercising any significant authority within the operation. Substantial mitigation was prepared and presented to the court on his behalf.

Importantly we successfully distinguished the facts of her client's case from the authorities relied upon by the prosecution. We persuaded the court that the circumstances did not justify either an increased sentence based solely on the quantity of drugs involved or sentence outside the applicable guidelines.

Outcome

After considering the competing arguments, the court accepted the defence submissions and declined to increase the sentence in the manner sought by the prosecution.

As a result, our client received a sentence of 6 years and 8 months' imprisonment, substantially lower than the sentence advanced by the prosecution and significantly below the 10-year starting point they contended should be increased further.

Our client was represented by Melanie Krudy.