[2025] EWCA Crim 1416

The judge found that each of the appellants had a leading role in the conspiracy. He did not differentiate between them as far as their culpability was concerned. He inferred that the conspiracy to supply cocaine alone had involved the supply of more than five kilograms of the drug, and he therefore placed this conspiracy within category 1 of the Sentencing Council's definitive guideline. The starting point was therefore one of 14 years' custody, and the category range between 12 and 16 years.

In each case the judge moved up from the starting point to 15 years' custody, to reflect aggravating features. He noted that the appellants did not stop trading in drugs after their earlier arrests; that the cocaine was of particularly high purity; that the motivation for the offending was greed; and that they targeted students as potential purchasers.

The judge then applied a one third discount to reduce the sentence to ten years' custody. He then moved up from that point to 14 years in the case of Mphande and 16 years in the case of Guidamavicias in order to reflect their overall offending. In doing that, he noted the number of different drugs that they were able to supply and the quantity of drugs that were recovered during the course of the investigation. The upward movement in the case of Gaidamavicias was greater than that for Mphande because his sentence had to reflect the importation of the cannabis in which Mphande was not provably involved.

The grounds of appeal are now advanced in the same way on behalf of each appellant. It is said that the judge erred in applying the guilty plea discount before increasing the sentence in order to reflect the appellants' overall criminality. What he should have done, it is submitted, is to have increased the sentence in order to reflect the total criminality and then to have imposed the guilty plea discount.