R v Daniel Smith

This is an appeal with the leave of the single judge against a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the Appellant following his conviction on his pleas of guilty to three offences of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. The Appellant contends that the overall sentence is manifestly excessive, invites this court to quash it, and to substitute a sentence that properly reflects his culpability and personal circumstances.

The Appellant was a participant in significant drugs supply conspiracies headed by Christopher Kelsey, who absconded during the investigation and remains at large subject to an arrest warrant. The conspiracies operated through multiple "graft" telephone lines, used to send bulk messages advertising controlled drugs including cocaine, MDMA and ketamine. These messages employed coded language such as "active" and "raw flake" to indicate availability and quality.

Between June and December 2023 the group's principal base of operations was at 30 Chester Street, Saltney, the home of the co-defendant Kai Bradley. Following police intervention in December 2023, the operation relocated to the address of another co-defendant, Lucy Pagett. Drugs were stored at various locations including the Appellant's home, where substantial quantities were kept. The Appellant assisted in preparing and weighing drugs for onward supply and maintained direct contact with Kelsey and another co-defendant, Ryan Yates, who was his neighbour.

Surveillance and message analysis revealed repeated communications between the Appellant and his co-defendants, which established his active involvement in the conspiracies.

On 21 March 2024 warrants were executed at the Appellant's address, resulting in the recovery of significant quantities of controlled drugs and drug paraphernalia, including: 701 gms of cocaine at 80% purity, consistent with the remains of a kilo block, with an estimated street value of £42,000 to £70,000; 2,812 MDMA tablets, valued between £14,060 and £28,169; 167 gms of 'Tusi', which is an MDMA and ketamine mix, valued between £10,020 and £16,700; and 2.53 kgs of ketamine, valued between £50,600 and £100,200.

Police officers recovered cooler bags, packaging and gloves from inside a wood burning fire, a Ziplock freezer bag containing MDMA, MDMA in blue plastic packaging, ketamine in a clear bag, a Ziplock freezer bag containing pink powder residue with '2,000' written on it, pink MDMA tablets in plastic packaging and a safe. The safe was opened at the police station and found to contain a black bag, itself containing a mix of MDMA and ketamine, a blue bag containing MDMA tablets, and pieces of cardboard with figures written on them. There was also a JD bag containing scales on which the Appellant's DNA was located, a teaspoon with residue on it, a plastic tub with white residue, a clear plastic outer bag and an unknown substance in some plastic packaging that was later confirmed to be cocaine and to have the Appellant's fingerprints on it. There was also a Morrison's “bag for life” containing ketamine.

During arrest the Appellant made comments implicating Yates but provided no comment when asked questions in interview.

On 21 November 2024, at the Crown Court at Chester, the Appellant was sentenced, following earlier guilty pleas to three counts of conspiracy, as follows:

The Appellant received 5% credit for his pleas because they had been entered after a Newton hearing at which the judge, His Honour Judge Leeming (the sentencing judge), rejected a basis of plea advanced by the Appellant in which he had claimed to be ignorant of the wider conspiracy and had sought to minimise his role.

In his sentencing remarks the judge identified the significant features of the Appellant's participation in the conspiracy as being that:

The prosecution submitted, and the judge accepted, that the offending fell into category 1, ‘significant role’, within the relevant sentencing guideline. This categorisation took into account that the conspiracies involved largescale high purity drugs in kilo quantities and the Appellant's overall function within the chain, in the expectation of significant financial advantage. There is no challenge to this categorisation.

The judge identified the aggravating features as the length of the Appellant's involvement over the course of 11 months and his participation in three separate conspiracies.

The judge identified the mitigating features as the absence of any previous convictions, the Appellant's drug addiction and personal difficulties, which the judge did not consider much reduced his culpability, and positive character references together with evidence that the Appellant had been drug free on remand.

The Appellant challenges the overall sentence, arguing that it is manifestly excessive. The core contention is that the sentencing judge arrived at a sentence on counts 1 and 2 that was too high before applying credit for the Appellant's plea. In doing so, it is said, he failed to give proper weight to personal mitigation. The Appellant contends that whilst at 38 years of age he had no previous convictions, a strong employment record and significant family responsibilities, these factors were largely overlooked. His involvement in the conspiracy was influenced by his drug addiction rather than pure financial gain, and he has since demonstrated positive rehabilitation in custody, remaining drug free and taking on a mentoring role.

Comparison with a co-conspirator was advanced to reinforce this argument. Ryan Yates, who played a more central role, attracted a sentence of 12 years before credit for plea, while the Appellant's equivalent precredit sentence of 11 years offered, it was argued, little recognition of his previous good character, mitigating circumstances, and lesser role.

As the judge said:

The social and individual impact of this sort of offending is serious and widespread, and, as the judge observed, substantial prison sentences were to be expected. Although the judge referred to a number of starting points, this was infelicitous language. There was only one starting point for the relevant category in the guideline, which was that of 10 years. Given that the sentences were to run concurrently, the overall sentence had to reflect all of the conspiracy counts. The judge went up from the starting point by 1 year, having taken into account aggravating and mitigating factors, and then applied credit for plea. We do not consider that there is any criticism to be made of that adjustment. It properly reflected the balance which was to be struck between the weight and nature of the offending and personal mitigation.

The co-defendant Yates was sentenced on the basis that his offending took him to the very top of the same category, which was a narrow one. We do not consider that there is any disparity in sentence.

Since there is no dispute as to the credit for plea, the result is that this was an appropriate sentence, rather than one which was manifestly excessive. The appeal is therefore dismissed.