The basic submissions of the Attorney General
15. We turn to the way in which the Attorney General has put the matter before us. It is contended that Hogg and Rolls were at the head of a well-equipped, organised, sophisticated and successful conspiracy to supply large quantities of cocaine to others. The equivalent of 5.1kg of cocaine at 100% purity was found at various addresses which were connected to the offenders and their associates and in two cars during the searches that took place. The scale of the operation to cut the cocaine with other agents indicated that at least 42kg of cocaine at 100% purity had been subjected to the process. The potential street value of the cocaine seized was £700,000. However, the potential street value of the cocaine seized in addition to the amounts calculated to have been processed would have been approximately £5.5 million. 16. Although hat was the essence of the way the Attorney General put the matter before us, it is necessary to refer in more detail to the roles of those involved; it was contended that Hogg and Rolls were at the head of the organisation whose operations included the running of what can properly be described as a “cocaine factory”. They had managerial responsibility and ran the organisation. They were the people who had established the factory and it was they who were the organisers. We shall return in due course to the detail of their role. 17. Roach was employed by the offenders Hogg and Rolls to mix and re-press the cocaine. Carolan was the purchaser and supplier. 1.25kg at 100% purity was attributed to him. Jennings was the storer of the cocaine; he looked after 0.640kg at 100% purity. Shepherd was a courier. Franklin was Rolls' girlfriend who assisted in hiding the cocaine at their home.
- Mr Q Hawkins
- Introduction
- The offences
- Goodyear
- The preparation of the reference
- R v Padoan and Smith
- The Judge’s sentencing remarks
- The basic submissions of the Attorney General
- The basic facts
- The approach to Rolls’ basis of plea : “gainsay”
- gainsay
- R v Underwood
- gainsaid”
- Newton
- The aggravating and mitigating factors
- R v Aramah
- R v Aranguren and Others
- Whiteway
- The appeal of Roach
