[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Dobre, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 370 (12 March 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/370.html Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 370

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT BIRMINGHAM
HER HONOUR JUDGE SARAH BUCKINGHAM) [T20217560]

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL
		12 March 2025

MRS JUSTICE FARBEY:

Introduction

1. On 15 March 2024, in the Crown Court at Birmingham before Her Honour Judge Buckingham, the appellant pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to one offence of conspiracy to supply a Class A drug, namely cocaine, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. On 17 July 2024, the judge imposed a sentence of four years' imprisonment. The appellant appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.

The Facts

2. The appellant lived in a flat in Edgbaston. She was in a romantic relationship with a co-conspirator, Amrez Alam. In May 2021, Mr Alam was arrested for being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs. His mobile phone was seized, analysed and found to contain documentation showing the appellant's name and address. Messages on WhatsApp between the appellant and Mr Alam showed that she too had been involved in the supply of cocaine.
3. Mr Alam would instruct the appellant to make up quantities of cocaine for onward supply. Generally, he instructed her to make up ounces, quarters or sixteenths. Sometimes he instructed her to make up "smalls", which were indicative of street deals. In addition, Mr Alam occasionally told the appellant what he and other conspirators were doing, and he told her of the weekly profit (£3,500) of the drugs line.
4. On 17 September 2020, Mr Alam instructed the appellant to make up a one ounce quantity of cocaine for another co-conspirator. The appellant did so and replied to say where she had left the cocaine, and also that 48.5 grams was left over. On 5 November 2020, the appellant informed Mr Alam of the existence of a large block of compressed cocaine weighing 252 grams, with some additional inferior material referred to as "dust".
5. The appellant was jointly charged with Mr Alam and four other conspirators. The total quantifiable amount of cocaine with which the appellant was personally and directly involved was initially said by the prosecution to be between 778 grams and one kilogram. By the time of the sentencing hearing before the judge, the prosecution put the case on the basis of 750 grams.
6. The appellant pleaded guilty on a written basis of plea that was accepted by the prosecution. The basis of plea states, so far as material, that the appellant acted under "emotional pressure" from, and under the instruction of, Mr Alam. She did not receive any financial reward and was involved with the drugs only as a favour to Mr Alam, who was her boyfriend. Her role was limited to weighing the drugs. She was not aware of the scale of "the operation".
7. We observe that the appellant was fortunate that the prosecution accepted that the basis of plea was factually accurate. Even a cursory reading of some of the text messages would suggest that the appellant was a willing participant in preparing drugs for onward supply by Mr Alam. Her claim to have acted under emotional pressure is open to question when considered against the background of her involvement in serious criminal activity, over a period of months, from which she could have extricated herself at any time. Nevertheless, we do not propose to go outside the confines of the basis of plea for the purpose of this appeal.
8. Before her plea of guilty to this offence, the appellant had no previous convictions. The judge had the benefit of a pre-sentence report which stated that the appellant presented a low risk of re-offending. By way of other mitigation, the judge was provided with evidence that the appellant had managed to complete a degree in business management at the University of Bedfordshire. She had established and ran what appears to have been a successful hairdressing business.

The Sentencing Remarks

9. In her sentencing remarks, the judge expressed scepticism about the appellant's claim to have been anything other than a willing participant in an ongoing conspiracy involving large quantities of drugs. She noted that some of the text messages from the appellant to Mr Alam clearly encouraged him to make money from drugs, and that the evidence showed "huge quantities" of drugs in the appellant's flat. The judge was nevertheless willing to accept, in accordance with the basis of plea, that the appellant did not appreciate how many kilograms her co-accused were supplying. The judge was prepared to accept that the appellant's role was limited to the packaging and storing of some of the drugs and that she acted under some emotional pressure from Mr Alam who had led her into criminal activity.
10. As regards the relevant sentencing guideline, it was agreed between the parties that the offence involved category 2 harm on the basis that, as regards the appellant's personal involvement in the conspiracy, the indicative quantity of cocaine was 750 grams. As regards culpability, the parties submitted that the appellant had a "lesser role". The starting point for a category 2 lesser role offence is five years' custody, and the category range is three years six months to seven years' custody.
11. The judge categorised the offence as involving category 2 harm. As regards culpability, she found that the appellant had some awareness of the scale of the operation. In context, and reading the sentencing remarks as a whole, the judge must have intended to convey that the appellant was aware of the scale of Mr Alam's activities within the conspiracy, albeit that she accepted that the appellant had no awareness of the quantity of drugs supplied in the overall conspiracy. On this basis, the judge found that the appellant had a "significant role". The starting point for a category 2 significant role offence is eight years' custody, and the category range is six years six months to ten years' custody.
12. However, the judge also took into consideration that the appellant's offending had several characteristics of a lesser role. She accepted that the appellant was "acting under some emotional pressure", that she had no influence on those above her in the chain, and that she had an expectation of limited, if any, financial or other advantage.
13. Taking into account these lesser role factors and other mitigation, the judge reduced the sentence from a notional six and a half years' imprisonment to five years, before giving 20 per cent discount for the late guilty plea. In this way she reached the sentence of four years' imprisonment, as we have already mentioned.

The Grounds of Appeal

14. Mr Khan submits that in the context of the basis of plea, the judge erred in concluding that the appellant had a significant role in the conspiracy. He submits that she was bound to treat the appellant as having had a lesser role, in line with the basis of plea, which states that the appellant was not aware of the scale of the operation. In any event, he submits that the judge erred in starting at a notional sentence of six and a half years, such that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Analysis and Conclusions

15. We do not accept that the judge sentenced the appellant outside the scope of the basis of plea. A bald and unspecific assertion in the basis of plea that the appellant was not aware of the scale of "the operation" was reflected in the judge's acceptance, and the prosecution's agreement, that the appellant was not aware of the many kilograms of drugs supplied in the overall conspiracy. The basis of plea could not sensibly assert, and the judge could not properly accept, that the appellant had no awareness of the wider involvement of others, or the broad value of the drugs line, when the uncontradicted evidence was that Mr Alam told her about these things.
16. Nor could it sensibly be maintained that the appellant had no awareness of the scale of Mr Alam's activities. The judge was to this extent entitled to conclude that the appellant had some awareness and understanding of the scale of the conspiracy, and to treat this factor as demonstrating a significant role under the guideline.
17. The judge recognised the limitations of the appellant's awareness and understanding by her finding that the offence fell "at the bottom end of significant role". This was a balanced and reasonable conclusion. A similar conclusion could have been reached if the judge had accepted the submission of a lesser role but made an upward adjustment to the category starting point to reflect the presence of a factor pointing to a significant role.
18. The question for this court is whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. Even if the judge had sentenced the appellant on the basis of a lesser role, the starting point would have been five years' custody. However, this was serious offending. As the text messages show, the appellant took part in the conspiracy over a period of around seven months. Although it was agreed that she was directly involved in the supply of 750 grams of cocaine, she played her part in breathing oxygen into a larger conspiracy which made her offending more serious. We have been given no reason to disagree with the judge's finding that the pressure on the appellant was limited to some emotional pressure from which she could have removed herself at any time.
19. In the context of the seriousness of the offence, we agree with the judge that only limited weight should be afforded to mitigating factors, which are principally the appellant's lack of previous convictions, her remorse, and her low risk of re-offending We are not persuaded of any good reason for the sentence to be reduced below the starting point for a lesser role offence, before the appropriate discount for plea. Even if the judge had sentenced the appellant on the basis of a lesser role, the notional sentence before discount for plea would have been five years' custody. That is what the judge imposed.
20. There is no challenge to the 20 per cent discount for the late guilty plea. It follows that the sentence of four years' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
21. We wish to record our gratitude to Mr Khan for his attractive submissions.