[2025] EWCA Crim 1416

The judge was certainly entitled to find that each of the appellants played a leading role in the conspiracy. There was evidence that each was involved in the sourcing of substantial quantities of drug; that each had a full understanding of the scale of the conspiracies in which he was involved; and that each was set to profit significantly from those activities.

Nor can the judge be criticised for failing to differentiate between the roles of the two appellants, other than to reflect the added criminality of Gaidamavicias in importing cannabis.

It is not now contended on behalf of either of the appellants that the judge could not place the offending in relation to the cocaine into category 1. It was also conceded that he was entitled to find that at least five kilograms of that drug must have been supplied whilst the conspiracy was in operation.

It therefore follows, in our view, that it is unarguable that the judge was wrong to take 14 years as the appropriate starting point for the cocaine offence and then move up to 15 years to reflect the many aggravating features that we have identified, notwithstanding that the appellants were men of previous good character.

The judge was also duty bound to increase each of the appellant's sentences significantly in order to ensure that the sentence on count 1 reflected the totality of that appellant's criminality and not just his role in supplying cocaine. Again, we find no fault in the judge's conclusion that, had their been trials, it would have been proportionate to reflect that in Gaidamavicias' case by increasing the sentence by six years and in Mphande's case by increasing it by four years. There were a number of different drugs that were to be supplied and the appellants were in possession of and were supplying significant amounts of each of them.

However, in applying those uplifts after the reduction for the guilty plea was made, the judge contrived a situation by which no credit was given for the guilty pleas to those offences. We have concluded that the proper way to have approached this case would have been to apply the uplift to count 1 to reflect the totality of the offending before the guilty plea discount was applied. Applying the uplift after applying the guilty plea discount had resulted in sentences which, in our judgement, are manifestly excessive

Accordingly, we intend to allow these appeals to reflect this. We intend to quash both of the sentences on count 1 and replace them with a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment in the case of Gaidamavicias and in the case of Mphande a sentence of 12 years and eight months' imprisonment. These will then become the overall custodial terms on the appellants. The other shorter concurrent sentences will remain unaltered. To that extent these appeals are allowed.