R v Kamaljit Singh Chahal & Anor
[2024] EWCA Crim 466
R v Richard Weild & Anor
17 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 690
Court of Appeal
Two men were sentenced for running a large drug operation. One man got 19.5 years, the other 10 years. They appealed, arguing their roles were smaller than the judge thought and that their families suffered. The court said their roles were big and the suffering of their families was a lesser issue in such serious crimes. The appeals failed except for a minor administrative error in one man's sentence.
Key Facts
- •Richard Weild and John Morris were sentenced for drug trafficking offenses related to Operation Venetic.
- •Weild received a 19.5-year sentence, while Morris received a 10-year sentence.
- •Both were involved in the supply and adulteration of large quantities of Class A and B drugs.
- •Weild's operation involved a widespread network, generating significant profits.
- •Morris's premises were used for drug storage and adulteration.
- •Both defendants gave "no comment" interviews but eventually pleaded guilty.
- •Weild had prior convictions, while Morris had no prior convictions.
- •The sentencing judge considered the Sentencing Council Guidelines and relevant case law.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for conspiracy charges should consider the individual's role within the wider criminal activity, even if their personal involvement was limited.
R v Khan & ors [2013] EWCA Crim 800, [2014] 1 Cr App R (S) 10 at [34-35]
In conspiracy cases, the assessment of harm considers not only the quantities the conspirator dealt with but also what they intended or foresaw.
R v Wilson [2024] EWCA Crim 124, para. 27
The sentence announced by the judge in open court is effective, not what is administratively recorded.
R v Kent [1983] 77 Cr App R 120 at [124-5]
Mitigation based on the effect on family is of limited weight in serious cases.
R v Welch [2014] EWCA Crim 1027 (at para.18)
Outcomes
Weild's application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed.
The court found no merit in his arguments regarding his role in the offences or the weight given to his personal mitigation. His leading role in the drug supply, coupled with other offenses, justified the sentence.
Morris's appeal was dismissed, except for a technical correction regarding incorrectly announced concurrent sentences.
The court disagreed that Morris played a minor role. Evidence suggested active participation and knowledge of the operation's scale. His good character and mitigation were deemed of limited weight given the severity of his offenses.