R v Anthony Campbell

On 27 October 2023, in the Crown Court at Sheffield, the appellant, Anthony Campbell (now aged 40) was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment for one offence of conspiracy to supply controlled drugs of Class B (count 2). He was also sentenced to four years' imprisonment for one offence of conspiracy to convey List A articles (lock-knives) into prison (count 3); and to one year's imprisonment for on offence of conspiracy to convey List B items (mobile phones and chargers) into prison (count 4). All of the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently.

The appellant appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge on one ground only. It concerns the sentence for conspiracy to supply Class B drugs. The ground is that the judge said that the appropriate sentence would have been the maximum sentence available of 14 years' imprisonment, but that would be subject to a reduction of 25 per cent, to reflect the fact that the appellant had pleaded guilty. The judge then went on to impose a sentence of 11 years' imprisonment. The appellant says that the reduction of 25 per cent should have resulted in a sentence of ten and a half years' imprisonment, not 11 years.

The facts may be stated shortly. The appellant was convicted in June 2004 of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for that offence in 2006. Whilst in prison, he conspired with others to supply Class B drugs (cannabis, ketamine and spice) into three different prisons between 2018 and 2020. Items were smuggled in by a variety of methods, including, but not limited to, using a prison employee and during prison visits. Once within the prison, the prohibited items were sold to inmates. They were sold for far more money than they would have been sold in the outside world, and the profits were very great.

There was a sophisticated method of collecting payments. Once drugs were sold, the inmate would be told a price and provided with details of a bank account into which payment was to be made. These accounts were controlled by co-conspirators and money launderers outside the prison. The inmate would arrange for somebody outside the prison to transfer the money into the bank account.

As the sentencing judge rightly said, the supply of drugs undermines discipline and good order in prison. The supply of drugs is used for exploitation and extortion. It enriches some prisoners and gives them power over others, which they then exploit. It leads to the creation of debts and then further bullying and intimidation to enforce those debts. It leads to increased violence within the prison environment, which causes danger to prisoners and to staff. It affects the health of prisoners, and that places further pressures on staff. As the judge properly said, the supply of drugs in prison is a serious social evil.

The judge said that she had not been able to find evidence of a conspiracy as extensive as the present one. She took the supply of Class B drugs as the lead offence and passed a sentence on that offence which reflected the overall criminality, including the conveying of List A and List B articles into prison. It was accepted that the appellant had played a leading role. The conspiracy lasted for there years and took place in three different prisons. The appellant had previous convictions. All those are aggravating features.

The judge considered the relevant categories for harm and culpability under the guidelines. Eventually, she took the view that the maximum sentence available (14 years' imprisonment) would be the appropriate sentence, subject to a reduction of 25 per cent to reflect the stage at which the appellant pleaded guilty. Given the circumstances of this case, the judge was, in our judgment , fully entitled to reach the conclusion that she did.

The difficulty is a mathematical one. A 25 per cent reduction would, on the appellant's calculation, result in the sentence being reduced from 14 years to ten and a half years' imprisonment. In fact, as we have said, the judge imposed a sentence of 11 years' imprisonment.

Sentences in this country are determined according to law. Section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 provides that a court must follow any relevant Sentencing Council Guidelines, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. The Sentencing Council has adopted a guideline on reduction in sentence for a guilty plea. That guideline explains that there are three reasons for making a reduction in the sentence because the accused has pleaded guilty. Two of the reasons are: that it saves victims and witnesses from having to testify in court; and that it is in the public interest in that it saves public time and money on investigations and trials. The guideline provides for a reduction of a maximum of one quarter in the sentence that would otherwise be imposed, where the guilty plea is made after the first stage of the proceedings.

It was in accordance with that Guidelines that the sentencing judge decided that the sentence that would otherwise be imposed – 14 years' imprisonment, which was the maximum that could be imposed – would be reduced by 25 per cent. However, the sentence actually imposed was 11 years' imprisonment. Applying the calculation made on behalf of the appellant, the 25 per cent reduction would have resulted in a sentence of ten and a half years' imprisonment, not 11 years.

We accept that the appellant is entitled to have his sentence calculated correctly and in accordance with the relevant law. We therefore quash the sentence of 11 years' imprisonment for the offence of conspiracy to supply Class B drugs, and we substitute a sentence of ten years and six months' imprisonment. That sentence is to be served consecutively to the sentence that the appellant is currently serving for murder.

Accordingly, and to that limited extent, this appeal against sentence is allowed.