R v Michael John Burns
[2024] EWCA Crim 160
R v Zach Hall & Anor
16 August 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1167
Court of Appeal
Two men were convicted of dealing a lot of cocaine. One man got 9 years and 4 months in jail, the other got 6 years. They appealed their sentences, but the judges decided the sentences were fair, even though the original judge didn't explain his reasoning perfectly.
Key Facts
- •Richard Cranston and Zach Hall pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply Class A drugs (cocaine).
- •The conspiracy involved an organised crime group importing and distributing kilogram quantities of cocaine.
- •Hall managed the day-to-day operations, while Cranston was a customer collecting drugs for onward sale.
- •Significant quantities of cocaine were found at locations linked to the conspirators.
- •Hall changed his mobile phone after each arrest of co-conspirators.
- •Cranston had previous drug convictions in Italy and Malta.
- •Hall had a previous conviction for public disorder offences.
- •The prosecution argued for Category 1 of the sentencing guideline due to the scale of the operation.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
Sentencing Guideline for drug offences
Assessment of harm and culpability in sentencing.
Criminal Law Act 1977, section 1(1)
Credit for guilty pleas.
Court of Appeal precedent
Test for unjustified disparity in sentencing.
Crown v. Rudd [2017] EWCA (Crim.) 2446
Outcomes
Hall's appeal dismissed.
Court found the recorder's sentence within the appropriate range for a significant role in a Category 1 conspiracy, taking into account mitigation and conditions in custody. No unjustified disparity with Degisi's sentence.
Cranston's appeal dismissed.
Court upheld the recorder's Category 1 classification and significant role assessment. The court considered the previous conviction for drug dealing, mitigation, and prison conditions. The final sentence was deemed appropriate.