Key Facts
- •Two applicants, Kamaljit Chahal (53) and Bhipon Chahal (26), appealed their sentences for conspiracy to supply controlled drugs (cocaine, heroin, cannabis).
- •The conspiracy stemmed from Operation Venetic, involving EncroChat messages revealing a large-scale drug operation in the East Midlands.
- •Kamaljit Chahal led the organized crime group (OCG), while Bhipon Chahal played a leading role.
- •The conspiracy lasted eight months (February 1, 2020 – September 23, 2020), with significant drug quantities (70kg cocaine, 2.5kg heroin, 33kg cannabis) and money (£1.6 million) involved in a 14-week period.
- •All defendants pleaded guilty. Kamaljit Chahal received 18 years, Bhipon Chahal 15 years, and Sandeep Johal 11 years.
- •Kamaljit Chahal had a prior conviction for drug offenses.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for drug conspiracies should not slavishly apply statutory guidelines; harm assessment considers intended or foreseeable consequences, not just direct involvement; conspiracies are usually intended to continue.
R v Wilson [2024] EWCA Crim 124 at paragraph 26
Sentences for serious commercial drug operations may exceed 20 years, depending on the offender's role.
Sentencing Council Guidelines for Supply of a Controlled Drug
Sentences should not normally exceed 30 years, except in exceptional circumstances; there is likely to be 'crowding or bunching' in extremely large-scale cases.
R v Cuni [2018] EWCA Crim 600
When assessing a young adult's sentence, consider whether their actions represent a hot-headed immature response or a calculated involvement in a sophisticated criminal enterprise.
ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596
Outcomes
Kamaljit Chahal's appeal refused.
The sentencing judge's approach was consistent with guidelines and case law; the starting point for sentencing was justified given the scale of the operation; aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors.
Bhipon Chahal's appeal refused.
The judge's assessment of Bhipon Chahal's role was reasonable; mitigating factors (youth, withdrawal from conspiracy) were considered; the sentence was not manifestly excessive.