Manders, R. v

MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES: On 18th August 2006 in the Crown Court at Southwark, this applicant, aged 32, changed her plea to guilty to conspiring to supply a class C drug, namely cannabis. On 22nd November 2006, following a trial of her co-accused, she was sentenced to a term of four years' imprisonment. The co-accused Forrester had pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment, Hobbs changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced to six years' imprisonment, Calder, Ciccone and Gaines were acquitted, Hart had died and McConkey awaited a retrial.

The facts in short form were these. On 27th November 2005 at Felixstowe, Customs officers intercepted two containers shipped from Mexico with wardrobes on board with some 4.5 tonnes of cannabis concealed within them with a street value of approximately £3 million. The cannabis was removed and replaced with bricks and a covert listening device was placed in one of the wardrobes. The consignment was permitted to complete its journey to a furniture shop in Hounslow run by the co-accused Hobbs.

The co-accused Forrester was said to be the organiser of the conspiracy. He had created a bogus front company by the name of London City Beds. The applicant's role was said to be to create paperwork for London City Beds and to liaise with the importation company, Dolphin Movers.

When interviewed, the applicant said that Forrester was an old friend. She believed that London City Beds was legitimate. Forrester had mentioned importing furniture. She denied ever speaking to Dolphin Movers.

Her basis of plea, significantly, was made on the basis that she knew cannabis was to be imported, but did not know the volume. Her role was limited to communication with the shipping company in the United Kingdom. Her only link to the conspirators was through Forrester. She agreed to participate, having been the subject of a veiled threat by Forrester to which we will return. Whilst her plea of guilty was not at the earliest opportunity, it is significant, it is submitted, that other conspirators were acquitted. She was dealt with as a person of good character, her two previous convictions for dishonesty being in 1991 and 1995.

The pre-sentence report was written in the mistaken belief that the applicant had no previous convictions and assessed the likelihood of re-offending as low and assessed her as suitable for a community order. It is noteworthy that the applicant asserted to the probation officer that her involvement in the conspiracy was circumstantial and unintentional.

The applicant is a youth worker, having worked for the probation service until 2003. She is the mother of two children, aged 12 and four at the time of the report. She supported the children herself, living in council accommodation.

She explained her involvement in this way. In early 2006 she provided secretarial assistance wholly innocently to Forrester, who, at the time, was establishing London City Beds. In May 2006 she was involved in a road traffic accident which affected her mobility and prevented her from leaving home. She accordingly assisted Forrester in his new business, including communicating with Dolphin Movers. At that stage all that she did was innocent.

It was not until July 2006 that the applicant noted unusual behaviour on Forrester's part, including a reluctance to discuss the furniture business. The applicant informed Forrester that she no longer wished to work for him. She suggested it was time that he employed staff. In response, Forrester said to her that he intended to import cannabis with the furniture shipment in order to "sweeten the deal". Mr Maguire, whose submissions to us today have been most helpful, laid emphasis on the fact that he referred to importing "some cannabis", the applicant having no idea that he intended to import cannabis of the volume in fact recovered. He told her that as she had already assisted that she was already involved. The veiled threat he made was that serious individuals were involved and it would not now be possible for her to withdraw.

Accordingly, on her behalf, Mr Maguire advances the following mitigation. Firstly, the plea of guilty coupled with the basis of plea. Secondly, the limited role of the applicant, limited to communicating with the shipping company, with no links to her co-accused other than Forrester. Thirdly, the late entry into the conspiracy effected by veiled threats. Fourthly, the absence of any proven gain or benefit. Fifthly, her effective good character. Sixthly, there are a number of character references before us which we have read. Seventhly, she is the mother and sole supporter of two children. Finally, we have been referred to some four reports from prison establishments which can best be summarised in one sentence written by the residential governor, Mr Charalambous, in which he said:

On first consideration it may well be thought that a sentence of four years' imprisonment reflected the lesser role played by Miss Manders in this conspiracy. However, specific complaint has been made that the judge failed to refer to the basis of plea and in concluding that she was playing a positive role for her own gain, and stating in terms:

Whilst the applicant must have appreciated that a significant importation was contemplated, we accept, having regard to her role, that she may well have been entirely in the dark as to the volume of cannabis that was to be imported, and, indeed, we see no clear basis, certainly none explained by the sentencing judge, for wholly rejecting the essential basis of the submissions advanced on the applicant's behalf.

Accordingly, we are minded to grant this application for leave to appeal. We are minded to substitute for the four year term of imprisonment a term of three years' imprisonment. We do so on the usual basis. In the event of counsel wishing to take the matter further, there are 14 days in which he may do so, but, subject to that, we do grant leave and indicate we are minded to substitute a term of three years' imprisonment.

MR MAGUIRE: My Lord, because of Miss Manders' behaviour whilst in custody she is on fairly regular release as is referred to in the letters put before the court. She attends court today and sits at the back of the court. I wonder if we can proceed to deal with that now.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: If you take instructions from her, and then on her behalf indicate that she is prepared to accept our decision as being the hearing of the appeal, we will deal with it on that basis.

MR MAGUIRE: I don't need to take instructions from her. I can say she does.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Right. Then the order will be as indicated by my Lord. I think, Mr Maguire, you are pro bono at the moment.

MR MAGUIRE: My Lord, I wonder if I can have a representation order.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: You can have a representation order for today.

MR MAGUIRE: Thank you very much.