R v Kamaljit Singh Chahal & Anor
[2024] EWCA Crim 466
R v Anand Tripathi & Anor
20 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 769
Court of Appeal
Two men were caught smuggling tons of drugs. A judge gave them shorter sentences than they deserved. A higher court increased their prison time because the original sentences were too soft considering the amount of drugs and their crucial roles in the operation.
Key Facts
- •Anand Tripathi (Offender 1) and Varun Bhardwaj (Offender 2) were convicted of conspiracy to import cocaine, cannabis, and cigarettes.
- •Offender 1 received a 15-year sentence, while Offender 2 received a 19-year sentence.
- •The Attorney General referred the sentences as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
- •The offenses involved significant quantities of drugs and cigarettes, with a substantial loss to the Revenue.
- •Both offenders played leading roles in a sophisticated drug smuggling operation.
- •Offender 1 had pre-existing health conditions requiring dialysis.
- •The sentencing judge considered prison overcrowding and the offenders' health when determining the sentences.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for drug trafficking conspiracies.
Sentencing Council Guidelines
Consideration of prison overcrowding when sentencing.
R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 and R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592
Balancing personal circumstances of the offender against the gravity of the offense and public interest.
Sentencing Guidelines
Appropriate sentencing for offenders with poor health prognosis.
R v Keith W [2012] EWCA Crim 355
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal quashed the original sentences.
The Court found that the original sentences were unduly lenient, given the scale of the operation and the offenders' leading roles.
Offender 1's sentence was increased to 20 years' imprisonment.
The Court considered the scale of offending, leading role, and health condition of the offender. A 5-year reduction was deemed appropriate for mitigation, but the original 7 year reduction was deemed excessive.
Offender 2's sentence was increased to 23 years' imprisonment.
The Court considered the scale of offending, leading role, and totality of offenses. The original reduction due to prison overcrowding was deemed legally incorrect.