R v Jamie Worrall & Ors

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It is not to be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved. Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCA Crim 632 IN THE COURT OF APPEALRoyal Courts of Justice CRIMINAL DIVISIONThe Strand London WC2A 2LL ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT WORCESTER (HIS HONOUR JUDGE BURBIDGE KC) [22CA1388420] Case No 2024/04139/A2, 2024/04245/A2Thursday 23 April 2026 2024/04284/A2 & 2025/01234/A2 B e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE DOVE MRS JUSTICE BRUNNER DBE THE RECORDER OF THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA (His Honour Judge Edmunds KC) (Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division) ____________________ R EX – v – JAMIE WORRALL AARON LEE ADAMS ADAM NICHOLLS PAUL BAILEY ____________________ Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: [email protected] (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) ___________________ Mr R Lallie appeared on behalf of the Applicant Jamie Worrall Mr J Rose appeared on behalf of the Applicant Adam Nicholls The Applicants Aaron Lee Adams and Paul Bailey were not represented and did not appear ___________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Thursday 23 April 2026 LORD JUSTICE DOVE:

1. On 30 September 2024, in the Crown Court at Worcester, before His Honour Judge Burbidge KC the first applicant, Paul Bailey pleaded guilty to two counts on an indictment: count 1 charged conspiracy to supply a controlled drug of Class A (cocaine), contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977; and count 2 charged conspiracy to supply a controlled drug of Class B (cannabis), contrary to the same provision.

2. On 7 October 2024, the second applicant, Jamie Worrall pleaded guilty, following re-arraignment, to the same two offences before the same judge.

3. The third and fourth applicants, Aaron Adams and Adam Nicholls respectively, were convicted of the same offences on 6 November 2024, following a trial before His Honour Judge Burbidge KC and a jury. On that day, Adams, Nicholls and Worrall were sentenced by the trial judge. Adams was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment on count 1 and to a concurrent term of three years' imprisonment on count

2. Nicholls was sentenced to 23 years' imprisonment on count 1, and to a concurrent term of three years' imprisonment on count

2. Worrall was sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment on count 1, and to a concurrent term of two years' imprisonment on count

2.

4. Bailey was sentenced by His Honour Judge Burbidge KC on 31 March 2025. The delay was attributable in part to his wish to rely upon expert evidence as to the quantity of drugs. He was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment on count 1, and to a consecutive term of two years' imprisonment on count

2. The total sentence in his case was therefore one of 20 years' imprisonment.

5. Applications for leave to appeal against sentence were in due course made, all of which were refused by the single judge. Those applications are now renewed before the full court. We have received oral submissions from Mr Lallie on behalf of the applicant Worrall and from Mr Rose on behalf of the applicant Nicholls. We are grateful to them for their submissions.

6. The factual background may be summarised as follows. Between April 2020 and January 2021, the four applicants were involved in commercial scale conspiracies to supply cannabis and cocaine across the Worcester area, but also more widely across the United Kingdom. The encrypted messaging service, EncroChat, was used to co-ordinate the activities of the conspirators between April and June 2020, at which time the service was closed after its operators became aware that it had been infiltrated by law enforcement agencies.

7. Thereafter, communication was conducted on the platform Wickr, although, as the judge noted in his sentencing remarks, those messages could generally not be identified as they were subject to automated deletion.

8. The prosecution case was based largely on the evidence of the electronic communications, the records of which begin in April 2020, when the EncroChat service was compromised by the French and Dutch authorities. The correspondence was broken down by investigators into more than 35 discrete events in this case which, taken together, it was the prosecution case made up the conspiracies. A sample of these was referred to by the judge in his sentencing remarks. It is not necessary for us to repeat them in this judgment as, in addition to the judge's observations, they are also fully recorded in the prosecution's opening.

9. Suffice to say that the evidence showed the regular ordering of substantial quantities of drugs (regularly in kilo quantities), alongside the transporting of the drugs (both cocaine and cannabis), and large amounts of cash in a manner redolent of this species of organised criminal activity.

10. Bailey was described as the "first among equals" by His Honour Judge Burbidge KC. It was he who was in contact with the (as yet unidentified) upstream suppliers, and in the course of a wide-ranging leadership role, he directed the operational side of the conspiracies. He was responsible for sourcing the EncroChat devices and was considered by the judge to be the closest to the source of the large-scale suppliers of the drugs with which the conspiracy was dealing.

11. Nicholls was said by the judge to have been further from the supply than Bailey, but was nonetheless an individual with a leading role, in charge as he was of a number of couriers. His home was a starting or end point for the delivery of drugs, and he was recorded as being involved in the majority of the events which formed the basis of the prosecution case. The judge noted that Nicholls was directly involved in the directing of the couriers of the operation, and he was a person who was deferred to when enquiries came to others in relation to the potential supply of large quantities of drugs.

12. Adams was likewise found to have a leading role, albeit of a lower significance than that of Bailey. He was involved in at least 15 of the events identified by the prosecution.

13. Worrall was also found to have had a leading role. He was found in possession of a tick list of potential sources and suppliers, showing sums in excess of thousands of pounds. The judge accepted that Worrall, compared to the others, generally had less directorial influence over the conduct of the conspiracy and was involved for a shorter length of time. But he noted, nonetheless, that his particularly close relationship with Bailey indicated that he was fully aware of the considerable breadth of the conspiracy.

14. Bailey and Worrall both pleaded guilty around the start of the trial and therefore were entitled to some credit (albeit limited) for those pleas which were entered. They had submitted bases of plea related, in part, to the volume of drugs in which they had personally been involved in the conspiracy. Ultimately the judge, who had had the great advantage of hearing all of the evidence in the trial of Adams and Nicholls, formed the conclusion that he could be sure that the conspiracy as a whole was involved in the dealing of 10 kilograms of cocaine and at least 20 kilograms of cannabis. Whilst initially Worrall and Bailey considered that they required expert evidence to test the judge's conclusion, as matters played out they did not pursue this point, and this became the accepted basis upon which the judge had to sentence the applicants.

15. The judge noted that the guideline for the supply of drugs, whilst not expressly governing conspiracy, applied. He referred to the decisions in R v Wilson [2024] EWCA Crim 124, and R v Chahal [2024] EWCA Crim

466. Those authorities confirm that a conspiracy to supply Class A drugs can be aggravated by a significant and adjacent conspiracy to supply Class B drugs.

16. The judge also made reference to the observation in the sentencing guidelines which indicates that where the quantity of drugs involved is significantly higher than the amounts listed in category 1, a sentence beyond the ranges specified in the guideline, and in excess of 20 years' imprisonment, may be justified. He was satisfied that, given his conclusions as to the quantity of cocaine with which the conspiracy was concerned, the applicants' cases fell to be dealt with in that manner.

17. The judge chose to deal with the cannabis conspiracy as a category 2 offence, although he acknowledged that a significant downward adjustment from the starting point would be required, given that the category is predicated on a quantity of at least 40 kilograms of cannabis.

18. After making observations of a general nature as to the possible mitigating features of delay and overcrowding in the male Prison Estate, neither of which was a factor to which the judge attached significant weight, the judge turned to the individual sentences which were appropriate to each of the applicants.

19. Nicholls was found to have played a leading role, having organised the buying and selling of drugs on a commercial scale, and having demonstrated substantial links to other parties in the supply chain. The judge was satisfied that Nicholls had an expectation of gaining substantial financial advantage. As a culpability A case of category 1 harm, with a leading role, the relevant staring point was one of 14 years' custody. But, as he had noted early in his sentencing remarks, the judge was satisfied that it was appropriate to move outside of the guidelines. The judge noted that there were two significant aggravating features in Nicholls' case in the form of a conviction in 2012 for possession with intent to supply cocaine, and again a similar type of offence in 2015. Nicholls was, therefore, a "third strike" offender. He indicated that a sentence of 18 years' imprisonment would have been appropriate if he were dealing with Nicholls only for the cocaine conspiracy, and made an addition of two years to reflect the cannabis conspiracy. He then made a further addition of three years on the basis of the two relevant and significant previous convictions set out above. The judge had regard to totality and was satisfied that the overall sentence of 23 years' imprisonment was one which was just and appropriate.

20. Adams was sentenced on essentially the same basis as Nicholls. The judge arrived at a starting point of 18 years' imprisonment in relation to the cocaine conspiracy. He also had relevant previous convictions, albeit less serious, for conspiracy to supply Class B drugs in 2013, and driving whilst disqualified in 2019. The judge noted the personal mitigation which Adams had in the form of his two young children who would be adversely affected by his imprisonment. The judge considered that Adams was not as involved as Bailey, but was at least as involved as Worrall. One year's imprisonment was added for Adams' previous convictions, and a further three years' imprisonment were added for the cannabis conspiracy. The total sentence imposed, which the judge was satisfied met the requirements of totality, was one of 22 years' imprisonment in his case.

21. The judge expressed the view that Worrall's was a leading role, that he understood the scale of the conspiracy, and that he had some involvement in directing Bailey in organising the activities of dealing drugs. The judge noted that Worrall had no less than 38 previous convictions for approximately 60 offences, which included the supply of Class B drugs. The judge also noted the personal mitigation that Worrall had in the form of his new relationship and the support which he provided for his stepchildren. Given his conclusion that Worrall had been involved for a shorter period, the judge decided that an appropriate sentence would, after trial, have been 25 years' imprisonment for the cocaine conspiracy. Two years were added to this lead offence for the cannabis conspiracy, together with another two years for Worrall's relevant previous convictions. This led to an overall sentence of 19 years' imprisonment, to which a reduction of ten per cent was applied for his guilty plea. The sentence ultimately imposed was one of 17 years' imprisonment.

22. In sentencing Bailey, the judge had in mind the particular delay to which he had been subject, but noted that delay could attract little weight in circumstances where the reason for it was, at least in part, attributable to Bailey's basis of plea as to the quantum of drugs involved – a point which he subsequently abandoned. The judge also considered the fact that Bailey had been recalled to prison on a sentence of 17 years, following his arrest in 2021, and had as a consequence spent some 15 months in custody, against which the fresh sentence would not count. He therefore took as a starting point a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment in relation to the cocaine conspiracy, from which he deducted ten per cent for the guilty plea. He then passed a sentence of three years' imprisonment for the cannabis conspiracy, which he ordered to run consecutively, but reduced it to two years to give credit for the guilty plea. No addition was made for Bailey's criminal history. The resulting total sentence was one of 20 years' imprisonment.

23. On behalf of the applicant Bailey, who was aged 56 at the time of sentence and is now 57, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is based upon two grounds: first, that the judge's provisional sentence of 20 years' imprisonment was too high; and second, that the judge erred in failing to give proper weight to all of the mitigation in his case.

24. As to the first ground, it is submitted that 10 kilograms of cocaine was not (to use the language of the guidelines) "significantly" more than 5 kilograms, and was therefore insufficient to justify a sentence outside the category ranges. The appropriate starting point should, instead, have been one of 16 years (the top of the category 1 range).

25. As to the second ground, it is submitted that the mitigating factors substantially outweighed the aggravating factors. It is said that the judge ought to have given greater weight to the fact that Bailey's period of recall took place in the midst of the Coronavirus pandemic, and to the period of very substantial overcrowding in the male Prison Estate. He should have considered these factors, alongside the long period of time spent recalled on licence as constituting exceptional factors which justified a reduction in sentence within the meaning of R v Qasim [2024] EWCA Crim 1655. It is said further that, although the judge did make a downward adjustment on the basis of delay, it was, looked at in the round, an inadequate adjustment.

26. Following the refusal of his application for a representation order, Bailey made further representations to this court in writing. He has repeated the point that he was sentenced above the ranges specified in the guidelines and in a matter which he submits to be disproportionate. He further submits that he was not given credit for his guilty plea in relation to the cannabis conspiracy and also that no appropriate consideration was given of the time that he spent in custody on recall – a delay, he submits, which was attributable to errors made by the police.

27. The applicant Worrall, who was aged 38 at the time of sentence and is now 39, founds his application on two grounds. First, it is said that the judge erred in his selection of the starting point of 17 years' imprisonment; it ought to have been in the region of 12 years. Secondly, it is said that the judge made an error in his calculations and arrived at an incorrect sentence. It is submitted that, bearing in mind the way in which he expressed himself in his sentencing remarks, the judge intended to make concurrent the sentence for the offence of conspiracy to supply cannabis, and that the starting point he wanted to deploy, prior to reduction for credit for the guilty plea, was one of 15 years' imprisonment.

28. In relation to the first ground, it is submitted that insufficient regard was paid to Worrall's basis of plea, which was that he was involved in a conspiracy to supply no more than 3 kilograms of cocaine personally; and that his was a "significant" role in the conspiracy, but not a "leading" one. It is also submitted that the judge failed to have proper regard to delay, the guilty plea and the other mitigation advanced before the court, and that the uplift in relation to the previous convictions was too severe.

29. The applicant Adams, who was aged 39 at the time of sentence and is now 40, renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence on the sole ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. As in the case of Bailey, Adams submits that the judge erred in finding that the quantity of cocaine was significantly higher than 5 kilograms and that he should therefore not have been sentenced outside the guidelines. Adams also submits that his role cannot accurately be described as "leading"; that instead it ought to have been found as falling between "significant" and "leading". His principal function was to arrange the transport for the drugs and money, but only under the direction of others. It is further submitted on his behalf that he did not source his EncroChat handset and that, given the modest amount of money which was seized at his address (approximately £1,000) when he was arrested, his financial reward ought not to have been described as "significant", rather than "substantial".

30. The applicant Nicholls, who was aged 42 at the time he was sentenced and is now 44, also renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence solely on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive. In particular, it is submitted on his behalf that the total of 23 years' imprisonment to which he was sentenced was far too high for engagement in a conspiracy concerning 10 kilograms of cocaine. It is further submitted that he ought to have been found to have occupied a "significant" rather than a "leading" role in the conspiracy and thus the uplift consequent upon his previous convictions was far too long. Conclusion

31. It is notable that there is a common theme in all of these renewed applications, namely that the judge was wrong to sentence the applicants outside the guidelines provided.

32. In our view, such a submission is misconceived. The guidelines make specific provision for cases of this kind in noting that "where the operation is on the most serious and commercial scale involving a quantity of drugs significantly higher than category 1, sentences of 20 years and above may be appropriate, depending on the offender's role".

33. This approach has been reflected in numerous judgments of this court in cases involving very large scale operations in respect of Class A drugs. The judge formed the view, having heard the evidence, that the conspiracy as a whole in which each of the applicants played his part was engaged in the supply of 10 kilograms of cocaine and 20 kilograms of cannabis. The quantity of cocaine is obviously significantly higher than the category 1 indicative quantity, and the operation of the conspiracy was, in our judgment, at the most serious and commercial scale. Whilst, for instance, the applicant Worrall has referenced his basis of plea and his personal contribution to the conspiracy, that cannot go behind the judge's finding of the scale of drug dealing involved in the conspiracy in which he took part as a whole. As a result of this, the approach taken by the judge to the scale of sentences that the applicants had to face was unarguably correct in principle.

34. So far as the individual sentences are concerned, the judge took account of the delay in Bailey's case in so far as it gave rise to him serving time on remand which would not count because he was serving out an earlier sentence. The judge was right to observe that the points in relation to the pandemic and current prison conditions carried little weight on the basis that the applicant would be serving a long sentence. These issues and the personal mitigation available to Bailey were clearly taken into consideration by the judge in fixing the sentence after trial and prior to discount for the guilty plea. It was further specifically taken into account by the judge by not increasing the sentence for Bailey's previous convictions. Overall, the sentence imposed on the leading actor in this industrial scale conspiracy was neither manifestly excessive, nor wrong in principle.

35. In the case of Worrall, we have already dealt with his point in relation to the basis of plea. Given the extent of the conspiracy, the starting point of 15 years' imprisonment for the offence of conspiracy to supply cocaine was not arguably wrong. Indeed, it could be said to be generous. There is no substance whatsoever in the point taken as to the calculation of the sentence. The judge took a consistent approach to the applicant Worrall, as he had to others, namely by taking the cocaine charge as the leading sentence and then incorporating within it an enhancement of that sentence to reflect the other conspiracy engaged in the supply of cannabis. Thus, the ultimate calculation of the sentence in Worrall's case was entirely accurate. His sentence had to be increased to reflect the involvement with the cannabis conspiracy; and it is clear that the judge took account of such personal mitigation as was available to him. In our view, the application in his case is wholly unarguable.

36. Adams' complaints about his categorisation cannot be sensibly sustained. The judge heard his trial and was therefore ideally placed to assess the role that he played in the conspiracy, as well as the quantities of drugs involved in the conspiracies at large. The judge gave specific examples to illustrate the level of the operational role that Adams played in the criminal activity in his sentencing remarks. We are in no doubt that there is nothing even arguably wrong with the sentence which was imposed upon him.

37. Finally, in the case of Nicholls, similar considerations apply. As the judge noted, he was involved in the buying and selling of drugs on a substantial commercial scale and had, in the judge's view, clear and substantial links to others in the supply chain. The judge noted that Nicholls had expectation of substantial financial advantage. These were conclusions which were obviously available to the judge on the evidence which he had heard in detail, and, in truth, there was little, if anything, in Nicholls' case to seek to gainsay this. The submissions advanced in the written argument in relation to what is said to be his personal involvement are, for the reasons we have already given, misconceived. His involvement was to play a key, leading part in a large conspiracy which traded in drugs in excess of those quantities which are indicated in the guideline, and that is the source of both his liability and culpability. In addition, the judge had to take account of Nicholls' previous convictions for activities of this kind. Again, in his case we are unable to detect anything even arguably amounting to an error in the sentence which was imposed in his case.

38. It follows from our examination of these renewed applications that we are wholly satisfied that the single judge was correct in refusing leave to appeal, and we adopt the single judge's reasons.

39. Accordingly, these renewed applications are refused. _____________________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected] ______________________________