R v Oliver Paske

This is the hearing of a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and for an extension of time, both to make the original application (111 days) and to renew (3 days). We should deal with the last extension first because that was a very small error and it was nothing to do with the applicant and we would grant that extension. The first extension, which is more substantial, will depend on the merits of the application.

The applicant was convicted, on his own plea of guilty, to a count of conspiracy to supply a Class A drug (cocaine), two counts of conspiracy to sell a Class B drug (cannabis and amphetamine) and a conspiracy to sell or transfer prohibited weapons. The conspiracy lasted between 25 March and 13 June 2020.

The applicant was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment on count 1, no separate penalty was imposed on counts 2 and 3 and 11 years’ imprisonment concurrent on count 4, on 5 January 2024. That was with 15 per cent credit for plea.

The applicant (who is now aged 31 years old) had one previous conviction and that was on 2 July 2020, in the Crown Court at Birmingham, where the applicant was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment for possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of ammunition without a firearms certificate. His co-defendant on that indictment was Connor Mee who features in the conspiracy the subject of this application. On 1 May 2020, so during the period of the conspiracy which is the subject of this application, he had been found in possession of a Colt 41 revolver which was hidden in a van that he was driving. Ammunition was found at his home address and he was imprisoned and he was serving that sentence of imprisonment when he was arrested for the matters which are the subject of this application.

So far as this application is concerned, those involved in the conspiracy used Encrochat telecommunications network to conduct their activities. Sean Ellis was at the centre of the drugs conspiracies and at the time of the sentence he was at large. It is believed he had gone to Spain and then Dubai. He operated a wholesale cocaine business and obtained kilogram blocks of cocaine which he sold on to lower scale wholesalers. One of those was Harry Swann. His network extended to the southwest of the country, his contact there was a person called Steven Spooner (who is now deceased). He would supply Spooner with cannabis and amphetamine.

The applicant was involved in the transportation of those drugs and the collection of cash. He used an EncroChat handle “BluffRegent” and was principally but not exclusively a courier of cash and he was referred to by Mr Ellis as his “paperboy”. There were occasions when the applicant transferred kilogram blocks of cocaine as well as relatively modest wholesale quantities of cannabis and amphetamine.

The applicant was entrusted by Ellis to keep count of the money and he also kept a firearm for onward transfer to a customer of Ellis who used the EncroChat handle “ViralNinja”. That firearm was the subject of the earlier proceedings in 2020.

Mr Ellis relied on the applicant to provide a regular account of the group’s financial position. The applicant operated predominantly under instruction but did introduce his brother-in-law, Connor Mee (the name given earlier), to Mr Ellis as a potential customer.

In May 2020, the applicant collected debts owed to Mr Ellis from various customers. On one trip to see another EncroChat user he left without collecting money because he was concerned he was being observed. At the end of March, he collected £11,930 from Mr Swann, who had already been mentioned and the applicant kept Mr Ellis updated as to monies owed.

In April 2020, the applicant was sent to collect money at various car parks. He had concerns about that and referred to the “need to swerve late night grafts”. Mr Ellis suggested that Mr Mee should source cocaine from Mr Ellis and the applicant arranged for a sample of cocaine to be provided to Mr Mee. Following that Mr Ellis supplied a kilogram of cocaine for which he would pay upfront. The applicant kept Ellis informed throughout April as to cash held, what was due to suppliers and up the chain.

On 1 May the applicant was arrested along with Connor Mee for possession of the firearm that he had been holding for Mr Ellis. The van was searched and the hidden compartment detected and gun discovered. The EncroChat device was seized and the information was thereafter downloaded.

In respect of count 4, which was the conspiracy to sell or transfer a prohibited weapon, the applicant was involved in a short exchange with Mr Ellis on 2 April, when the applicant said to Ellis: “Connor Mee said you know anyone selling any John Gotti (slang for shotguns)?”. Ellis replied he did not but he could acquire “straps (slang for pistols)” and the applicant responded: “What ones?” “You can get Glocks can’t you.” Although the applicant was acting as a broker there was no evidence that any transfer actually took place.

There are three proposed grounds of appeal. The first is that the judge erred in imposing a sentence of 11 years. This had the effect, with the earlier sentence, of making an overall sentence of 17 years which it was said was disproportionate to the totality of the offending. The second ground is that the judge erred by making an unfair and arbitrary uplift to the starting point to reflect the aggravating factor of the use of the encrypted phone. The third ground is that the judge erred in giving the applicant 15 per cent credit for his guilty pleas, as he would have pleaded earlier, if the application to stay the indictment as an abuse had been heard sooner. Those submissions have been developed and modified orally today by Mr Schofield. We are very grateful to Mr Schofield for his helpful written and oral submissions.

As to the first ground of appeal, as was pointed out by the single judge, the aggregate sentence for this wholesale conspiracy to supply drugs, and firearms, one firearm being the subject of the earlier sentence could not, on any basis, be described as manifestly excessive when the whole of the criminality is considered. It is necessary to consider the amount of cocaine, the sums involved, and the supply of firearms.

As to the uplift for the use of the EncroChat phone, this is an aggravating factor. Mr Schofield was right to point out in oral submissions this morning that it had been taken into account in relation to the other firearm offence but it was rightly taken into account for that offence and rightly taken into account in relation to these offences. It is an aggravating feature to use sophisticated devices to hide criminality.

As to the third point, Mr Schofield accepted frankly that he would not have brought the application on this ground alone but, in any event, we cannot see anything wrong with the figure of 15 per cent credit given by the judge to the applicant. The applicant did not plead guilty at the pre-trial preliminary hearing and he did not accept attribution of the phone at that stage. It is right that when the autrefois acquit argument relating to the earlier proceedings had been finally determined and, in some respects, partly in his favour, he did plead guilty, but he could have pleaded guilty before for those counts in respect of which he was guilty. There were, as Mr Schofield frankly accepted, some advantages to the applicant in keeping in issue his pleas at a time when issues about the admissibility of the EncroChat evidence were working through the courts.

So, for all those reasons and notwithstanding the considerable skill with which the submissions have been made to us, we refuse the first application for an extension of time and leave to appeal. That is because there are no arguable grounds of appeal.