Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R v Lorien Whyte

[2023] EWCA Crim 625
A man was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison for dealing large amounts of drugs. He appealed, saying his role wasn't as big as the judge thought and his sentence was too harsh compared to someone else involved. The appeal court disagreed, saying his role was indeed significant, the sentence was fair considering the amount of drugs and his use of an encrypted phone, and the difference in sentences was acceptable.

Key Facts

  • Lorien Whyte (appellant), 52, pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to supply Class B drugs (cannabis and ketamine).
  • Count 1: Conspiracy to supply at least 318kg (possibly up to 343kg) of cannabis between March 22, 2020, and June 1, 2020.
  • Count 2: Conspiracy to supply 10kg of ketamine (unclear if the deal was completed).
  • Sentenced to 7 years 6 months imprisonment by HHJ Thompson.
  • Appellant used EncroChat to communicate with suppliers and buyers.
  • Kendle, a supplier, received a sentence of 5 years 3 months for his involvement in a related cannabis conspiracy.

Legal Principles

Sentencing Guidelines for drug trafficking, specifically regarding the categorization of roles (leading vs. significant) and quantities involved.

Sentencing Guidelines

Principle of totality in sentencing when multiple offences are involved.

[Implicit in the judgment]

Test for disparity in sentencing: whether a reasonable person would consider the sentence manifestly excessive or if there was a miscarriage of justice.

[Implicit in the judgment]

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The court upheld the judge's categorization of the appellant's role as 'leading' rather than 'significant', citing the scale of the operation and the appellant's organizing role. The court also found the sentence, while not fully explained by the judge, was justified given the quantity of drugs, use of EncroChat, and the inclusion of both cannabis and ketamine offences in the overall sentence. The disparity between the appellant's sentence and Kendle's was deemed acceptable given the differing circumstances and charges.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.