WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. |
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved. |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 1517 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT HHJ LEONARD KC T20207243 CASE NO 202402638/A5 |
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Before:
LORD JUSTICE FRASER
MR JUSTICE CONSTABLE
HER HONOUR JUDGE LEIGH
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
REX
V
PETER THOMPSON
__________
Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________
MR J SCOBIE appeared on behalf of the Applicant
_________
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE CONSTABLE: This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against a 21-and-a-half year sentence of imprisonment imposed on 28 June 2024. This was made up of a sentence of 16-and-a-half years for conspiracy to evade a prohibition, five years for possessing a prohibited firearm consecutive and five years for possessing prohibited ammunition concurrent.
The facts
Between March and June 2020 the applicant was involved in a conspiracy to import and supply significant quantities of cocaine. James Harding was the head of this criminal enterprise. Using the EncroChat handle "topsking", Harding personally directed the applicant to receive shipments of cocaine from abroad and deliver it to a network of suppliers across the United Kingdom in five or 10-kilo packages. The applicant would meet the lorries shortly after they arrived in the country and would coordinate other drivers who would collect the cocaine to distribute in smaller quantities.
Each of the conspirators used an encrypted EncroChat mobile device. The applicant's EncroChat handles were "demon" and "logicaldemon". Analysis of the messages suggests that over the course of the limited indictment period the conspirators, including the applicant, made approximately 50 cocaine importations into the United Kingdom. The total weight came to an astonishing 1,000 kilograms. Cocaine was purchased for around £30,000 and sold for up to £40,000 per kilo and the conspirators made, it is estimated, between £60,000 and £70,000 with each importation. That came to approximately £5 million profit during just the two-and-a-half month indictment period.
The police made a large number of seizures of drugs and cash in April and May 2020 and these were discussed in messages between the conspirators. The prosecution relied on six specific seizures, five in relation to drugs and one in relation to cash: 79-kilos of cocaine and over £300,000 cash was seized. On the basis of the evidence the applicant personally made 12 collections, taking in 117 kilos of cocaine. He was responsible for 57 deliveries which amounted to a further 370 kilos, making 487 kilos of high purity cocaine in total.
The applicant was arrested at his home address in June 2020 for his involvement in the drug offences. At the property the officers found a self-loading pistol, 25 unfired parabellum calibre bulleted cartridges, and three magazines (one fully loaded, one partially loaded and one empty).
The sentence
The judge categorised the applicant as having a leading role. He identified that the applicant was in direct contact with "topsking" and was clearly a very trusted member of the team dealing with the importation. The quantities obviously far exceeded the highest harm category which is based upon n indicative quantity of five kilos and the applicant had the benefit of a 25 per cent reduction for the timing of his guilty plea.
The appeal
Mr James Scobie KC argued eloquently before us this morning that there are two key parts of the appeal. The first is that the very experienced judge fell into, as Mr Scobie perhaps would have put it, an uncharacteristic error of placing the applicant into a leading category. The second key theme was that when looking at totality, the effect of making 16-and-a-half years consecutive with five years, which itself was correct in principle, led however to an overall sentence which when considering totality was manifestly excessive.
Mr Scobie put particular emphasis on the fact that whilst he was no doubt a significant role within the conspiracy and potentially at the top end of the significant role, his role can be juxtaposed with those of Mr Harding and Mr Kharouti. Mr Harding was based in Dubai. He was far removed from getting his ‘hands dirty’ in the day-to-day operation in the United Kingdom. That should be contrasted with Mr Thompson who, far from being in the shadows, was at the forefront in the United Kingdom at an operational level. This should not, it was argued, be seen as a leading role. Mr Scobie also emphasised the good character of Mr Thompson up to the point at which he became involved in the conspiracy, and the fact that he had become wrapped up in this conspiracy only because he had had to stop working because of ill-health. However, in the context of this offending, these factors do not go very far. To describe Mr Thompson's involvement as ‘a poor decision’ might be thought somewhat of understatement.
Notwithstanding the eloquence of Mr Scobie's submissions, it is our view that it is not reasonably arguable that a total sentence of 21-and-a-half years was manifestly excessive. We do no better than to refer to and repeat the very full reasons clearly explained, given by the single judge:
"I have considered the papers in your case and your proposed grounds of appeal.
You were sentenced to a total of 21½ years' custody, having pleaded guilty to your part in a huge illegal drugs importation conspiracy, and to two firearms offences. Your sentence was structured as follows:
Conspiracy: 16½ years
Firearms offences: 5 years each, concurrent
Consecutive total: 21½ years.
You wish to be able to argue that this is manifestly excessive, in particular because the sentencing Judge wrongly assessed you as having had a leading role in the conspiracy, because he had insufficient regard to totality in structuring your sentence, and because he gave insufficient weight to the mitigating factors in your case.
I can see from his sentencing remarks that the Judge had addressed himself to the Sentencing Council Guideline for unlawful Class A drug importation. That says this: 'In assessing culpability, the sentencer should weigh up all the factors of the case to determine role. Where there are characteristics present which fall under different role categories, or where the level of the offender's role is affected by the scale of the operation, the court should balance these characteristics to reach a fair assessment of the offender's culpability.'
The conspiracy in which you were involved was of enormous proportions. The Judge noted: 'It is hard to comprehend the quantity of cocaine that the EncroChat messages revealed to have been imported, or was about to be imported, could all have happened within the space of approximately two and a half months. The message detail somewhere in the region of 1000 kilograms of cocaine being imported in 50 separate consignments, and then being distributed in smaller quantities throughout the country.' Only two individuals had responsibility for the totality of these importations. You worked directly to one of them. You met the lorries shortly after the drugs had entered in the country. You organised the division and distribution from there to other drivers. You personally made 12 collections and were responsible for 57 deliveries – altogether about 487kg of high purity cocaine. Within the characteristics identified by the Guideline, on the facts to which you pleaded, the Judge was entitled to find that you were directing or organising buying and selling on a commercial scale, had substantial links to, and influence on, others in a chain, and you had close links to the original source. There is no arguable error in his concluding that you had a leading role in this operation.
The Judge was also entitled to note, in assessing harm, that you had been handling quantities 'far outside the sentencing guidelines' – by a factor, indeed, approaching a hundredfold. The Guideline states: 'Where the operation is on the most serious and commercial scale, involving quantities of drugs significantly higher than category 1, sentences of 20 years and above may be appropriate, depending on the offender's role.' Your sentence of 16½ years after credit for plea represents a total indicative sentence of 22 years. That is consistent with appropriate aggravation for the full scale of the operation you were helping direct, and with the use of EncroChat to do so ('use of sophisticated methods or technologies in order to avoid or impede detection'). It is also consistent with appropriate mitigation for the matters put before the Judge on your behalf, which he was entitled to have weighed modestly in all the circumstances. It is consistent with the Guideline, and with the guidance of this Court for sentencing huge conspiracies and the enormous damage they do to our society. There is no arguable error here.
Your firearms offences were subject to statutory minimum sentencing. According to the Totality Guideline, an overall consecutive sentence structure will ordinarily be appropriate where, although the offending may be related, (a) it involves an aggravating element that requires separate recognition, or (b) one or more offences qualify for a statutory minimum sentence and concurrent sentences would improperly undermine that minimum or (c) the overall criminality will not sufficiently be reflected by concurrent sentences. The Judge was entitled to choose an overall consecutive structure on any or all of these grounds.
The general principle of totality requires that the overall sentence should 'reflect all of the offending behaviour with reference to overall harm and culpability, together with the aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the offences and those personal to the offender, and be just and proportionate'. The Judge directed himself to the requirements of totality, and indicated that the individual components of your sentence had been reduced accordingly.
The indicative sentence of 22 years for the conspiracy was, as well as being consistent with the matters indicated above, also consistent with allowance having been made for totality.
It had also properly been open to the Judge to have sentenced the firearm offences above the statutory minimum. According to the Firearms Poss Culpability offences, in the relevant criminal context. The starting point for a single A/2 offence is 7 years. Aggravation for the conspiracy and consecutive sentencing dimensions would have been appropriate. The Judge's having sentenced at the statutory minimum level is therefore consistent with proper allowance having been made for totality.
It is not, in all of these circumstances, arguable that your sentence is wrong in principle, manifestly excessive, or otherwise than just and proportionate to the totality of your very serious offending. Leave to appeal is refused accordingly."
We agree. We briefly emphasise that in relation to the role the applicant, who worked directly for Mr Harding was clearly extraordinarily well trusted and was in effect the number one coordinator within the United Kingdom. We agree with Mr Scobie that perhaps it matters not whether he is categorised as top of the significant or bottom of the leading role. Clearly he had a very different role to those at the very top of the chain. Nevertheless, his role was such of such importance, and his connections to the top so immediate, that – bearing in mind the quantities involved – 16.5 years’ imprisonment for the drug conspiracy involvement was not manifestly excessive. It did not arguably become manifestly excessive when to it was added five years for the firearms offences.
We therefore refuse the renewed application for permission to appeal.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk