Court of Appeal Increases Sentence in R v Redi Gjoni for Drug Trafficking Offenses

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1634
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of R v Redi Gjoni, [2023] EWCA Crim 1634, addresses significant issues regarding sentencing guidelines, the role of a defendant in drug trafficking operations, and the consideration of concurrent versus consecutive sentences for separate offenses. This article aims to analyse the case law presented, focusing on the legal principles applied by the EWCA-Criminal and the implications of the judgment.

Key Facts

Redi Gjoni, a 26-year-old Albanian national with pre-settled status in the UK, pled guilty to two counts relating to drug trafficking. Count 1 involved the distribution of 46 kgs of cocaine over a six-week period, whereas Count 2 related to the possession of 11 kgs of cocaine and substantial cash later on. The trial court sentenced Gjoni to 9 years’ imprisonment for Count 1 and a concurrent 7-years-6-months for Count 2. The Attorney General referred the case, seeking a review of the sentence on the grounds that it did not appropriately reflect the scale of the offending, considering the substantial quantities involved, which far exceeded the guideline’s indicative amounts.

The Court of Appeal made several references to existing case law and guidelines, including:

  • The Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guideline on Drug Offences, which provides frameworks for determining harm categories and roles in drug trafficking operations.
  • Principles outlined in R v Cuni [2018] EWCA Crim 600 and R v Greenfield [2020] EWCA Crim 459, stressing the importance of quantifying the drug amount in the sentence, and considering seniority, geographical scope, length of involvement, and number of conspiracies.
  • R v Clarke [2023] EWCA Crim 933 and R v Costi [2023] EWCA Crim 235 underscore the individualized nature of drug conspiracy sentences.

The Court analyzed the sentencing guidelines’ “harm categories” and “role factors”, distinguishing between significant and lesser roles in a drug trafficking operation, determining that Gjoni had a “significant role” but also acknowledged “lesser role” elements, such as having no influence over those above him in the chain.

Outcomes

The Court of Appeal, upon its review, found that the original sentence did not adequately account for the separate criminality and harm caused by the second count of offending. The separate offenses, time-separated by 2-years-and-4-months and by Gjoni’s legitimate activities, necessitated an uplift in the sentence for Count 1 to reflect the totality of the offending.

As a result, the court allowed the Attorney General’s reference and increased the sentence for Count 1 from 9 years to 13-and-a-half years, maintaining the concurrent sentence for Count 2 at 7-years-and-a-half.

Conclusion

R v Redi Gjoni presents a clear example of the application of sentencing guidelines and the necessity for individual sentences to reflect the scale and separate criminality involved in drug trafficking operations. The EWCA-Criminal’s decision to increase the sentence on one count while maintaining concurrency underscores the judiciary’s commitment to proportional sentencing that reflects the entirety of an offender’s criminal conduct. This case serves as a pertinent reminder to legal professionals of the complexities and nuances in sentencing for drug-related offenses, where quantity, role, and timing of multiple offenses must be cohesively considered to achieve just penal outcomes.