R v Kamaljit Singh Chahal & Anor
[2024] EWCA Crim 466
R v Paul Michael Mount & Ors
7 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 461
Court of Appeal
A big drug ring was busted, and several people got very long prison sentences. An appeals court checked the sentences and decided they were fair, even though some people involved argued they weren't as guilty as the judge said. The judges said the amount of drugs and the seriousness of the crime justified the long sentences.
Key Facts
- •Seven defendants sentenced for conspiracies to produce and supply class A and B drugs, with some also involved in firearms offences.
- •Principal conspiracies involved injectable amphetamine (Class A) and cocaine/heroin (Class A).
- •Evidence largely derived from EncroChat messages.
- •Judge assessed vast quantities of drugs involved, considering production at Wood Cottage and Box Works.
- •Sentences ranged from 14 years 4 months to 35 years imprisonment.
- •Appeals concerned sentence length and the judge's assessment of drug quantities and roles of defendants.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for drug offences should consider the quantity and type of drug, the role of the offender, and aggravating factors like previous convictions.
Sentencing Council Drugs Guideline
Even in cases involving exceptionally large quantities of drugs, sentences generally have a ceiling of around 30 years, except in extraordinary circumstances.
R v Cuni [2018] EWCA Crim 600
For serious offences, the impact on a defendant's family is a relevant but rarely prevailing consideration.
R v Boakye [2012] EWCA Crim 838
In conspiracy cases, culpability is increased by the joining of a wider agreement and the intention to further its aims.
Judge's sentencing remarks
Amphetamine designed for injection is a Class A drug, regardless of whether it is actually injected.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
Outcomes
Appeals of Mount, Saunderson, Owens, Hartley, and Beeby dismissed.
Judge's findings on drug quantities and roles were supported by the evidence; sentences were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
Renewed applications for leave to appeal by Pope and Shearwood refused.
Sentences were not manifestly excessive; judge's assessment of their roles was correct; limited mitigation in light of serious offences.