Appellant: Graham; Gilfedder and McInnes, Edinburgh

Respondent: Cleland; Crown Agent

11 December 2013

[1] Craig Jones pled guilty to being concerned in the supply of cocaine over a period of nine months between April and October 2012, and in the supply of cannabis resin over a period of five months between May and October in the same year. Both charges involved a multiplicity of locations.

[2] The background, as set out in the Crown narrative was, put shortly, that the appellant, who was based in Leeds, was facilitator for what can only be described as a substantial drugs supply operation involving the movement into and throughout Scotland of class A and class B drugs over a significant period of time.

[3] The drugs recovered on the dates of searches carried out in the course of a police operation were (a) cocaine with a street value of £100,000 to £195,000 and (b) cannabis resin with a street value of some £268,000 to £480,000. Cash of over £50,000 was also recovered that day.

[4] The appellant's activities included recruiting persons to take drugs into Scotland and to distribute them and also recruiting persons to adulterate and package them ready for distribution. He was a key link in the chain between those who were running the drug supply operation by handling the drugs and persons working for it. His links included links to persons living abroad in Spain. The plea was tendered at a continued preliminary hearing and the sentencing judge imposed a cumulo sentence of 11 years discounted from 14 years to allow for the plea.

[5] The sentencing judge noted that this was the appellant's third High Court conviction for a contravention of section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Accordingly he was subject to the minimum sentence provisions of section 205B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) 1995 Act. He noted the various points that were advanced in mitigation including that, following release from his first drugs offence, the appellant had been regarded by his principals as owing them a drug debt in respect of drugs seized when he was arrested and that following that, he had feared them and agreed to carry on his involvement, although on the basis that he would not be directly responsible for handling drugs. At one point, the sentencing judge referred to the appellant as the "commander" of the UK operation. He took account of all that was said to the effect that although the appellant had benefited financially, he was not the recipient of the totality of the ultimate profits of the operation. The sentencing judge considered that, given the appellant's previous convictions and that he had performed an important and senior role in the drugs supplying operation, the appropriate sentence was the cumulo sentence amounting to 11 years as referred to above.

[6] In the note of appeal, the case and argument, and in oral submission today, Mr Graham stressed that it was accepted a lengthy custodial sentence was appropriate. However, the sentencing judge had, it was said, misdirected himself in referring to the appellant as being a "commander". There was never any narrative that stated that. He did, however, accept that, as facilitator for the principal profiteers, the appellant had been in a role of considerable responsibility. His submission was, essentially, that what the appellant contributed to the operation was to provide a logistical service which limited the contact of the profiteers with those who actually carried out the operations at a detectable level. Mr Graham accepted that the appellant was higher in the chain than those who regularly come before these courts. In analysing the criminality with reference to where the appellant was in the chain of supply the sentencing judge had, he said, assumed that the appellant fulfilled too high a role. He accepted that where the sentencing judge had, in his sentencing statement, described the appellant as facilitator for the principal profiteers, and as having performed an important and senior role in a drugs supplying operation, he had not made an inaccurate statement. He did, however, continue to take issue with the use of the description "commander" in the UK in the appeal report. At this point we would, however, observe that the sentence in which that term is used should be read as a whole. The sentencing judge described the appellant as commander within the UK of both of the drugs supplying operations in the context of him being in a position of giving instructions to middlemen, suppliers, mixers, distributers, couriers and custodians, all of which would appear to be directly in line with what was set out in the agreed narrative.

[7] Mr Graham did not take issue with the level of discount afforded to the appellant in recognition of his plea of guilty.

Decision

[8] We have given careful consideration to the submissions made. We are not satisfied that the sentencing judge misdirected himself as to the nature of the appellant's role in this drugs supplying operation. We consider that the sentence imposed by him was entirely appropriate in all the circumstances and did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. This appeal is accordingly refused.