Gill & Anor, R v

These two appeals against sentence arise out of an extensive police investigation into the supply of very large quantities of cocaine in the Fylde coastal area of Lancashire and beyond. It resulted in the prosecution of over 30 individuals who were either convicted or pleaded guilty to various drug-related offences, including conspiracy to supply cocaine.

The criminal proceedings took place at Preston Crown Court before His Honour Judge Medland QC, who had the unenviable task of sentencing all those who had either been convicted or had pleaded guilty in respect of their particular roles within the conspiracy. It was a task which he carried out with particular care and clarity.

The appellant Bradley Gill had pleaded guilty to the conspiracy to supply cocaine on 31^st

Both appellants appeal against sentence with the leave of the single judge.

The police investigation was known as "Operation Jennet". It took place over a period in excess of a year, between about May 2016 and July 2017. During the investigation, six kilos of high purity cocaine, with a retail value of almost £700,000.00, together with over

The wholesale quantities of cocaine were sourced from Merseyside or Yorkshire and then brought into the Blackpool area, where they were bulked out and retailed along the Fylde coast. The conspiracy was headed by two individuals, namely, Anthony Gill and his brother Bradley Gill, both of whom were involved in a number of meetings with various of the co-conspirators throughout the period of the conspiracy.

John Foy together with his brother James Foy were involved in one delivery of cocaine from Liverpool to Blackpool on 17^th March 2017. The surveillance evidence revealed that they made the journey together in a VW Passat motor vehicle, and whilst James Foy stayed inside the vehicle, John Foy handed over a house brick sized package to one of the other conspirators. When the motor vehicle was subsequently seized in the course of the police investigation, it was found that, like other vehicles used within the conspiracy, it contained a specially adapted void between the rear passenger seats. The void had traces of cocaine within it, and it was accessed by an electromagnetic catch wired into the vehicle.

In his sentencing remarks, the judge indicated that, having heard the evidence in the trial, he accepted that this was a sophisticated conspiracy and that the overall quantity of drugs involved was likely to be at least 28 kilos of high purity cocaine. He observed that this was at least six times the indicative quantity within category 1 of the definitive guideline for drugs offences. He indicated that in order to reflect the scale of the conspiracy, he proposed to uplift the appropriate starting points, depending upon the role played by each of the conspirators, by around 25 per cent.

In relation to Anthony Gill and Bradley Gill, both of whom he considered to have had leading roles within the conspiracy, the judge assessed that after a trial the appropriate sentence would have been 21 years' imprisonment which, after deducting one-third to reflect the timing of their pleas of guilty, resulted in sentences in each of their cases of 14 years' imprisonment.

In relation to John Foy and his brother James Foy, the judge indicated that because of the limited nature of their involvement in the conspiracy, he would not apply the 25 per cent uplift from the appropriate starting point. In so far as the quantity of cocaine which they had delivered in the motor vehicle, the judge stated that:

In his original grounds of appeal, Mr Humphries, who appears on behalf of Bradley Gill, submitted that the sentence of 14 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. He suggested that, bearing in mind the fact that the police did not stop and search each of the motor vehicles involved in the various trips in and out of Blackpool, it could not be said with any certainty that they all involved transporting cocaine, such that the estimate of 28 kilos of cocaine was an overestimate, rather than an underestimate. Moreover, unlike his older brother who had a previous conviction in 2007 for supplying controlled drugs, Bradley Gill had only one previous conviction for possession of a bladed article. It was also pointed out that Bradley Gill had expressed remorse for his involvement in the conspiracy, had a number of testimonials available to him, and had undertaken a number of courses whilst in custody.

This morning, before us, Mr Humphries sought to rely upon a point identified by the single judge: that of a possible disparity between the sentence imposed on Bradley Gill and his brother Anthony Gill. Although the prosecution had placed both brothers in a leading role in this conspiracy, they had suggested that Bradley Gill may have played a subordinate role to that of his brother.

Mr Jones, who appears on behalf of James Foy, submits that the sentence of six and a half years' imprisonment imposed upon him is manifestly excessive. He submits that the judge was not entitled to conclude that the quantity of cocaine in which he had been involved was one kilo and suggests that it was significantly less. On this basis, the judge should have dealt with

His Honour Judge Medland QC had the distinct advantage that he was the trial judge in relation to a significant number of individual conspirators and was therefore in the best position to assess the evidence concerning the quantities of drugs involved in the conspiracy and the role played by the various conspirators.

In regard to the overall conspiracy, we have no doubt that, based upon the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the judge was entitled to determine that on a conservative basis the total quantity of cocaine involved was at least 28 kilos of high purity drug. This was, as he indicated, far in excess of the indicative level under category 1. Moreover, given the extent of his involvement in the conspiracy and that of his brother, there is no doubt that the judge was entitled to determine that both Bradley and Anthony Gill had leading roles within the conspiracy.

At this juncture it is opportune to remind ourselves that at step 1 of the definitive guideline it is pointed out that:

In relation to the disparity point, we are satisfied that the judge was entitled not only to make up his own mind on the evidence that he had heard about the respective roles played by the various participants in the conspiracy, but that, based upon the evidence, he was entitled to reach the view that both of these brothers bore equal culpability. It may well have been, as the evidence showed, that Anthony Gill was exclusively involved with the wholesale end of the operation, whereas Bradley Gill was exclusively involved in the retail end of the operation. But in our view, given the nature and extent of this conspiracy, those two roles were of equal importance within the running of this particular organised crime group. True it is that Anthony

As we have already pointed out, having heard the evidence in the trial, the judge was best placed to determine the quantity of drugs with which James Foy was involved. In his case the evidence was that, similarly to other known quantities, his brother had been seen with a house brick size piece of cocaine. Furthermore, although the prosecution had suggested that both James Foy and Daniel Thornber had played similar roles, namely a lesser role under the definitive guideline, the evidence in relation to the quantity of cocaine involved differed, in that all that could be seen of the package in the possession of Daniel Thornber was that it was contained in a plastic bag and was able to be placed in a jacket pocket.

In these circumstances, the judge determined that Daniel Thornber had played a lesser role in a category 3 offence within the definitive guideline and imposed a sentence which was within the relevant category range, namely four years' imprisonment.

In the case of James Foy, it is apparent that the sentence imposed upon him, namely six and a half years' imprisonment, was within the category range for an individual who had played a lesser role in a category 2 offence. We consider that, not only was the judge entitled to have sentenced James Foy within this category range, but he was entitled to uplift his sentence within the range to take into account the fact that, although he had not already been sentenced in relation to his conviction for conspiracy to produce cannabis, he had already committed this offence by the time he came to be involved in the conspiracy to supply cocaine. Therefore, we are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed upon James Foy was, as has been submitted to us, manifestly excessive.

Accordingly, both appeals against sentence are dismissed.