R v Mark Dolton Blower

____________________ A P P E A R A N C E S: Mr C Witcher appeared on behalf of the Applicant Mark Dolton Blower MISS R ROBERTSON appeared on behalf of the Attorney General MR M SCHOLES appeared on behalf of the Offender Charles Dilworth MR D BIRRELL appeared on behalf of the Offender Michael Day MR A PICKIN appeared on behalf of the Offender David Hague MR D McGUIRE appeared on behalf of the Offender Jamie Menagh MR I WHITEHURST appeared on behalf of the Offender Jon Fairclough ____________________________ Thursday 13 February 2025 LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE:

1. On 20 November 2024, in the Crown Court at Mold, His Honour Judge Rowlands sentenced Mark Blower, Charles Dilworth, Michael Day, David Hague, Jamie Menagh and Jon Fairclough for their parts in offences of conspiracy to supply, and possession with intent to supply of, very large quantities of Class A controlled drugs.

2. Meaning no disrespect, we shall for convenience refer to those men collectively as "the defendants" and individually by their surnames only.

3. Blower now applies for leave to appeal against his sentence, which he submits was manifestly excessive. His Majesty's Solicitor General believes that the sentences imposed on the other five offenders were unduly lenient and he applies for leave to refer their cases to this court, pursuant to section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, so that the sentencing may be reviewed.

4. The defendants were among a number of persons arrested during a police investigation into the importation of cocaine and heroin from Europe and its distribution into this country. The head of the criminal operation was Guy Remington. The prosecution adduced evidence of nine "events" between 4 May 2023 and 20 September 2023. On each of the nine occasions Remington drove a car towing an empty trailer through the Eurotunnel and returned about 24 hours later. On his return journeys the trailer appeared still to be empty, but it was in fact carrying a concealed load of Class A drugs. On the day after each of his return journeys, he drove up to a farm in North Wales owned by Luke Hirst and there met Hirst and Christopher Corfield. The drugs were unloaded from the trailer and packed into bags and boxes for onward supply. Some of those who came to collect the drugs were not trusted to visit the farm. They were, instead, met at a rendezvous point some distance away by Hirst, who drove their vehicles to the farm and then brought them back after the drugs had been loaded. Consignments of drugs were then taken to other parts of the country, including Merseyside, the Northeast and London.

5. On the last of the nine occasions, 20 September 2023, police intervened as the drugs were being unloaded from the trailer at the farm. That load comprised 505 kilograms of cocaine and 108 kilograms of heroin, with a wholesale value of between £15 million and £21.5 million, and a street value of £65 million. Based upon the available evidence, the prosecution estimated that in all between 2,000 and 3,000 kilograms of Class A drugs, with a total street value of between £200 million and £300 million were imported and distributed.

6. Present at the farm on 20 September 2023 were Corfield and Dilworth. Both fled. Dilworth involved his partner, who is the mother of his young child, his partner's sister and another man in removing him from the scene. They were in due course prosecuted for doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice.

7. Dilworth was able to make his way to Spain and was not arrested until about six months later. Corfield has not yet been arrested.

8. We turn to a brief summary of the individual cases. Blower, who was of previous good character, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply controlled drugs of Class A, namely cocaine and diamorphine ("the conspiracy"). He was based in London. He exchanged communications with Corfield. On 6 September 2023, Blower sent Morgan Towner, who was based in Surrey and had a van with a concealed compartment, to collect 10 kilograms of cocaine – part of a much larger load which had been brought into the farm by the eighth importation.

9. On 20 September 2023, Blower sent Towner to collect a further 15 kilograms. That collection was, however, abandoned because the police had intervened.

10. Materials considered by the judge in Blower's case included a letter from the defendant expressing his remorse and regret, character references which spoke highly of him, and a psychological report which referred to Blower's low intellectual functioning and mental health history. It was submitted that he had become addicted to drugs and was involved in the offending as a means of repaying a drugs debt. We are told that he has become drug free in prison, and we have seen a favourable report about him from the prison authorities.

11. Dilworth, who had a previous conviction in 2018 for possession with intent to supply of cannabis, pleaded guilty to the conspiracy. As we have said, he was at the farm on 20 September 2023, having been in direct phone contact with Corfield. He was there to unload the delivery of 613 kilograms of Class A drugs.

12. It was submitted on Dilworth's behalf that he had been involved on only that one occasion, having been recruited a short time earlier to assist in unloading a trailer at the farm. Mr Scholes, representing him in the Crown Court as he does today, characterised Dilworth as a "dogsbody" in the unloading – a description which the judge did not accept.

13. Dilworth is still only 25, and was a teenager at the time of his previous drugs offence. In a letter to the judge, he expressed his remorse, spoke of his work record, and made clear his regret in involving others. In his case also there were favourable references and there is a good report from the prison.

14. Day pleaded guilty to the conspiracy. He made two trips to collect drugs. He did not go to the farm itself. He took the drugs which were loaded into his vehicle back to Merseyside. The first trip was on 28 June 2023; it involved an unknown quantity of Class A drugs. On the second trip, which was on 6 September 2023, the evidence indicates that he collected 300 kilograms of Class A drugs, the street value of which would be about £30 million. On both occasions he had taken the precaution of detaching his mobile phone from the network before making his journey to North Wales and back.

15. Day put in a basis of plea, which was not disputed by the prosecution, in which he said that he was a courier working for a fee and had no knowledge of the exact quantity of drugs, though he accepted that on the second occasion he knew that it was "a lot". Given that the additional weight in his vehicle would have been the equivalent of four adult passengers, that was an inevitable admission.

16. A substantial amount of powerful personal mitigation was put before judge. Day was effectively of previous good character. He had served in the army and had attracted favourable reports from his superiors and his fellow soldiers. He had left the military after being shot and injured whilst on active service, but had gone on to work in the Middle East as a close protection officer, sustaining further injuries.

17. Mr Birrell, representing Day in the Crown Court as he does today, relied on the very favourable references, including from an ambassador for whom Day had worked as a bodyguard and who spoke of Day's working being to "the highest standards".

18. Day had been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD. It is clear from the material that was placed before the judge and relied on by Mr Birrell, that he had struggled to adapt to civilian life. Despite that, he had managed to create work for himself, and also had done much good work for charities. One of his children suffered particular problems, which we will not detail, and it was submitted on Day's behalf that his motive in this offending was to obtain funding for medical care.

19. Hague, who had no recent and relevant convictions, pleaded guilty to seven offences of possession with intent to supply, reflecting seven occasions when he travelled from his home in West Yorkshire and collected Class A drugs. For the most part, he conveyed those drugs back to Yorkshire, though on one occasion it appears that he went instead to Merseyside where he met up with one or more of the other conspirators. He was not one of those trusted to drive onto the farm itself. The prosecution estimated that he collected and distributed between 70 and 100 kilograms of Class A drugs in all.

20. Mr Pickin, representing Hague in the Crown Court as today, places understandable emphasis on the fact that the guilty pleas accepted by the prosecution were to substantive offences and not to the conspiracy.

21. Hague put forward a thoroughly dishonest basis of plea. There was a Newton hearing, after which the judge rejected that basis. He was satisfied so that he was sure that Hague knew throughout that he was carrying Class A drugs.

22. It was submitted in mitigation that imprisonment of Hague would have adverse consequences for his son and for his elderly father.

23. Menagh, who had no relevant or recent convictions, pleaded guilty to three offences of possession with intent to supply. Those charges reflected three occasions when he travelled from Liverpool to the farm itself. On one of those occasion, when police were keeping observations, he was seen to collect large and heavy bags. On each occasion he travelled back to Liverpool in convoy with Corfield. It was estimated that the total weight of Class A drugs involved was at least 50 kilograms.

24. Mr McGuire, representing Menagh, submitted that some aspects of Menagh's offending were indicative of a lesser role, whilst acknowledging that overall it was a significant role. It was said that Menagh knew Corfield through football and had been offered work by Corfield. Emphasis was placed in his case also on the fact that the prosecution had accepted pleas to the substantive offences and had not pursued the conspiracy charge. Mr McGuire further submitted that Menagh's involvement occurred over a period of about 25 day, after which, he suggested, Menagh had voluntarily disassociated himself from further involvement.

25. Fairclough, whose previous convictions did not include any drug offence and had never resulted in a custodial sentence, pleaded guilty to the conspiracy. He made six trips to collect Class A drugs, though he was not one of those trusted to drive to the farm itself.

26. In the Crown Court there was some issue as to the total weight of the drugs which he collected and distributed. Mr Whitehurst helpfully tells us today that it is accepted that it would have been of the order of 100 kilograms. It was submitted to the judge on Fairclough's behalf that he was remorseful for what he had done, and the point was made that sentencing had been delayed through no fault of his.

27. Before coming to the sentencing of those defendants, we must mention related but distinct proceedings in the Crown Court at Chester. Remington and Hirst pleaded guilty to the conspiracy. They had both been involved in all nine events. Towner, who, as we have said, was involved on two occasions, also pleaded guilty to the conspiracy. So, too, did Thomas Smith, who collected 100 kilograms from the farm on one occasion and conveyed it to Liverpool, and was due to collect another load of 150 kilograms on 20 September 2023.

28. Those four men were sentenced by His Honour Judge Everett, the Honorary Recorder of Chester, on 21 March 2024. In relation to each defendant, Judge Everett indicated what would have been the appropriate sentence, before moving down from that figure to take account of personal mitigation and reduction for guilty pleas. Judge Everett imposed the following sentences: Remington, 18 years' imprisonment (based on 30 years); Smith, 18 years' imprisonment (based on 26 years), with a concurrent sentence for a further drugs offence; Hirst, 12 years' imprisonment (based on 20 years); Towner, seven years' imprisonment (based on 12 years).

29. Returning to the defendants with whom we are concerned today, the judge began his sentencing remarks by explaining the extent to which he had given credit for the guilty pleas. No complaint is made in that regard, and we need not go into any detail about it. The judge then summarised the overall conspiracy. He rightly emphasised the vast quantities of drugs which were involved. He observed, again correctly, that, having been conveyed from the farm to various locations in England, the drugs "… would have ended up sold on the streets, causing untold problems for those addicted to the drugs themselves and, of course, for society at large who have to deal with the effects of the addiction, and also, they have to deal with crimes of dishonesty, acquisitive crimes committed by those who are addicted in order to fund such addictions".

30. The judge noted the differing roles played by individual defendants, but said that their offending was not committed to fund an addiction, but rather to fund a lifestyle or otherwise seek significant financial reward.

31. As to the sentences imposed on those conspirators who had been sentenced at Chester, the judge indicated the following very fair approach. He said that he was not bound by the level of sentencing imposed on the Chester defendants, but "I take the view that fairness dictates that I factor in those sentences when deciding what ought to be imposed in this particular court".

32. In relation to the Sentencing Council's relevant definitive guideline, it was common ground that each of the defendants was to be sentenced for a category 1A offence, or for conspiracy to commit such offence. The guideline indicates for a "leading role" a starting point of 14 years, with a range of 12 to 16 years' imprisonment; and for a "significant role", ten years, with a range of nine to 12 years' imprisonment. The judge rightly noted that the quantities of drugs involved here were much greater than the indicative quantity of 5 kilograms on which the category ranges in the guideline are based. The judge further referred to a note in the guideline which reads as follows: "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. Turning to individual defendants, the judge indicated that he had taken into account the personal mitigation in each case. He sentenced as follows. Blower, who had a leading role, was sentenced to 14 years and three months' imprisonment (based on a sentence of 21 years, reduced to 18 years because of significant mitigation, and further reduced by 20 per cent for the guilty plea). Dilworth, who had a significant role, was sentenced to seven years and six months' imprisonment (based on ten years, reduced by 25 per cent for the guilt plea). The judge took the view that the mitigation in his case was balanced out by the aggravating feature that Dilworth had involved others in his flight from arrest. Day, who had a significant role, was sentenced to six years' imprisonment (based on 12 years, reduced to nine years because of significant mitigation and further reduced by one third for the guilty plea); Hague, who had a significant role, was sentenced to nine years and four months' imprisonment, less 98 days in respect of a period when Hague was subject to a qualifying curfew (based on 13 years, reduced to 11 years by mitigation, and further reduced by 15 per cent for the guilty plea which had been entered on a false basis). Menagh, who had a significant role, was sentenced to seven years and six months' imprisonment (based on 12 years, reduced to ten years by mitigation, and further reduced by 25 per cent for the guilty plea). Fairclough, who had a significant role, was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment (based on 12 years, reduced to ten years because of mitigation, and further reduced by 30 per cent for the guilty plea).

34. We commend the clarity with which the judge explained his approach and with which he explained the individual sentences which he imposed during this difficult sentencing process.

35. Before referring to the submissions, we briefly refer to some aspects of case law relating to sentencing for drugs conspiracies. In R v Khan and Others [2013] EWCA Crim 800, at [29], it was confirmed that where offences of drugs supply are charged as a conspiracy, the Sentencing Council definitive guideline for substantive offences of drugs supply should be used. At [35] of its judgment, the court, having referred to the need to consider the individual role played by a person within the conspiracy, said this: "As a balancing factor, however, the court is entitled to reflect the fact that the offender has been part of a wider course of criminal activity. The fact of involvement in a conspiracy is an aggravating feature since each conspirator playing his part gives comfort and assistance to others knowing that he is doing so, and the greater his or her awareness of the scale of the enterprise in which he is assisting, the greater his culpability."

36. In R v Welsh and Others [2014] EWCA Crim 1027, at [12], the court referred to "… the inevitable position which a judge has to confront when seeking to differentiate the role and responsibility of a large number of offenders in the context of the most serious crime, in which regard it has to be borne in mind that the penal consequences of conviction extend beyond a custodial term but also include confiscation of the proceeds of crime. Where (as here) quantities exceed category 1, so that sentences of 20–30 years might come into play as explained in the rubric to the guideline, it is an exercise of judgment to scale up the corresponding sentences for those at the bottom rung of leading along with significant and lesser roles in such a way that fairly reflects not only the part played by the offender then being sentenced but also his comparative significance within the offending as a whole. Given the limit beyond which a sentence for this type of offence does not normally extend, it is not surprising that at the highest levels, sentences on different offenders will be nearer to each other than might otherwise be the case." Later in the judgment in that case, at [18], the court observed that "The interests and concerns of the families of the defendants can be of little significance at the most serious levels of criminality."

37. We mention finally R v Kavanagh [2021] EWCA Crim 1584, at [7]: "Conspiracies which are brought to an end by an elaborate police operation are generally intended by the conspirators to go on into the future. Section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires a court to take into account not only the harm which was caused by the offence, but also the harm which the offence was intended to cause or might foreseeably have caused."

38. Blower's grounds of appeal against sentence are that the notional sentence of 21 years, before reduction for mitigation and guilty plea, was much too long, in particular because it was nine years higher than the notional sentence for Towner, and higher than the notional sentence for Hirst, who had been involved in all nine events. It is submitted that although Blower was in a leading role, because he was directing Towner as part of the chain, Blower himself was under direction from others and he was involved on only two occasions. Mr Witcher, representing Blower today as he did in the Crown Court, submits that in the circumstances Blower's starting point for sentence should have been moved downwards towards the lower end of the range for a leading role. Some complaint is made by Mr Witcher that when he put forward written and oral submissions suggesting a notional sentence of around 14 to 15 years before consideration of mitigation and plea, the judge did not indicate that he had a significantly longer sentence in mind.

39. We can address that last point immediately. The judge had a number of defendants to sentence and had to assimilate a great deal of material. He could, if he wished, have raised particular issues with counsel, but he was under no obligation to do so when the only issue was as to the appropriate length of the inevitable prison sentence. There was in Blower's case no reason for the judge to require a Newton hearing. Counsel made his submissions; the judge made his decision. That was entirely conventional, and Blower has suffered no unfairness.

40. As to the principal points argued on Blower's behalf, we are bound to say that we find some inconsistency in his case. On the one hand, it is said that he was acting under the direction of others and that there was no evidence that he was responsible for any operation in which the drugs were to be used; but, on the other hand, he was referred to as "a customer of the wider conspiracy", which would seem to connote that he was involved in buying and selling drugs. We also find it difficult to reconcile the intellectual limitations stated in the psychological report with the fact that Blower, based in London, was able to arrange for Towner, based in Surrey (and with a suitable van), to collect substantial quantities of Class A drugs from organised criminals using premises in North Wales.

41. Be all that as it may, Blower by his plea admitted participation in the wider conspiracy. In relation to the two events in which he was specifically involved, he realistically accepted a leading role. Those events involved quantities of Class A drugs well in excess of the indicative amount on which the guideline category range is based. His participation was very close to the importation of the drugs. In those circumstances it is, in our view, unrealistic to suggest that his sentence should not have been much higher than that imposed on Towner. In any event, as the judge rightly said, the Chester sentences were not binding upon him. There can be no criticism of the significant reduction which the judge made to reflect Blower's personal mitigation.

42. Having reflected on Mr Witcher's helpful submissions, we accept that the sentence on Blower was a stiff one and that the submissions have raised arguable grounds, such that we grant leave to appeal. We are, however, satisfied that the sentence was within the range properly open to the judge; it was not manifestly excessive. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

43. We turn to the submissions of Miss Robertson on behalf of His Majesty's Solicitor General. It is argued that all of the sentences imposed on the other defendants were unduly lenient for two reasons: first, because the judge failed to apply an appropriate uplift to the guideline starting points to reflect the high quantities of drugs involved in this case; and secondly, because the judge made too great a reduction for mitigation.

44. Developing her very helpful written submissions orally before us today, Miss Robertson emphasises that each consignment of Class A drugs involved in these cases related to a quantity of drugs far above the indicative guideline quantities. Miss Robertson submits that whilst the judge plainly had that feature in mind, he did not sufficiently scale up the guideline range of sentences to reflect those vast quantities. She considers whether there is any ground for saying that the guideline starting point should initially have been moved downwards to reflect a particular offender's position within a category range, but submits that there was, in reality, no reason to do so. She points to the purity of the drugs seized as being an additional aggravating factor. She submits that any attempt by any defendant to rely on a comparison with Towner's case is inapt, because he was simply a courier who successfully collected one load and was due to collect a second load. If there be any disparity between the sentences imposed by Judge Rowlands and those imposed by Judge Everett, it is submitted by Miss Robertson that the disparity arises because Judge Rowlands took too low a starting point, or, more precisely, failed sufficiently to increase the starting point.

45. In support of her second submission, Miss Robertson refers to R v Sanghera [2016] EWCA Crim 94 and R v Cuni [2018] EWCA Crim 600, in support of her argument that excessive weight was given by the judge to what was, in all but one case, commonplace personal mitigation. Miss Robertson acknowledges that there is an exception to that general criticism of the judge, because she accepts that in Day's case there was unusual and particularly significant personal mitigation which did call for some reduction from sentence.

46. The submissions on behalf of the defendants, putting them in broad terms, are that the sentences were not unduly lenient. Rather, they were the result of a careful and correct approach by the judge and reflected the personal mitigation available to each of the defendants.

47. We do not think it necessary to refer in detail to all of the submissions made specific to each defendant. We mention only the following, but we emphasise that we have considered them all..

48. Mr Scholes sought to argue that the prosecution have painted Dilworth's case with too broad a brush. He emphasises that Dilworth was involved solely to assist in unloading the drugs from the trailer, having been very recently recruited for that specific purpose.

49. In relation to the sentences imposed on the offenders in Chester, Mr Scholes submits that the judge's sentencing of these defendants was properly "informed" by the Chester sentences – an elegant phraseology subsequently adopted by other counsel.

50. Mr Birrell, on behalf of Day, emphasises the personal mitigation, to which we have referred. He submits that the circumstances of Day's individual case were such that the judge should have moved downwards from the guideline starting point and that the necessary uplift should have been lower in his case than would be appropriate in others.

51. Mr Pickin, on behalf of Hague, points out that the starting point taken by the judge in Hauge's case moved Hague up into the next bracket above in the guideline. If there was any leniency in the sentencing of the substantive offences, he submits, it was not undue leniency.

52. Mr McGuire emphasises the points to which we have already referred in relation to Menagh – in particular, the comparatively short duration of his involvement. Mr McGuire points out also that Menagh is experiencing custody for the first time.

53. Mr Whitehurst, on behalf of Fairclough, suggests that there were good reasons why in Fairclough's case the judge was right not to scale up – or not substantially to scale up – the sentences that would be appropriate on a strict application of the guideline. He, too, submits that if the sentence was lenient, it was not unduly so.

54. We are grateful to all counsel for the assistance they have given us with their written and oral submissions. Some of the submissions, as we have indicated, relied on a suggested disparity with the sentences imposed on the defendants in Chester. Submissions to that effect have been made both in relation to the sentences imposed by Judge Rowlands and also in relation to the likely effect if this court were to increase any of those sentences.

55. Such submissions face the very substantial difficulty that the Chester defendants were sentenced on a different occasion by a different judge for different activities, so that a precise comparison with all or any of these defendants is not possible. Moreover, we are satisfied that in his sentencing the judge was "properly informed" by the Chester sentences.

56. Turning to Miss Robertson's submissions, we do not accept the second of her principal arguments. True it is that the judge made significant reductions in each of these cases for personal mitigation. But he was sentencing men who, for the most part, had no relevant and recent previous convictions and who had put forward evidence showing a much better side to their characters. We accept the submission that personal mitigation must carry less weight when the offending is very serious. We agree that we can give very little weight to the unhappy consequences for the families of offenders who have sought to profit from promoting and feeding drug abuse by others. Nevertheless, in the circumstances of these cases, we are not persuaded that we should make reductions for personal mitigation which are any less than those which the judge thought appropriate.

57. That said, we do, however, accept Miss Robertson's first and principal submission. The judge was faced, as we have said, with a difficult sentencing process, and it is clear that he considered each individual case with great care.. With all respect to him, however, we are satisfied that he failed to give sufficient weight to the very large quantities of Class A drugs which were involved here. This was offending on a grand scale. The overall conspiracy involved the importation of Class A drugs with a total street value of £200 million to £300 million. Sale of those drugs on the streets would carry with it the inevitable consequences to which the judge rightly drew attention of addiction, misery and acquisitive crime by those seeking to fund their drug abuse. The individual involvement of these defendants involved quantities which were never less than 10 kilograms – twice the indicative amount adopted in a guideline which is intended to cater for the majority of cases. Some of the individual collections involved hundreds of kilograms. Further, this was a conspiracy which would no doubt have continued if the police had not intervened.

58. Whilst of course it is necessary to reflect the extent to which an individual defendant participated in drugs supply, each of these defendants had either admitted participation in a wider conspiracy, or had admitted repeated offences of possession with intent to supply in circumstance where it was perfectly obvious that the persons from whom the drugs were being obtained had access to huge quantities. None of the defendants, therefore, could realistically expect to be sentenced as if they were involved to only a very limited extent.

59. Taking all these matters into account we are satisfied that, with one exception, the sentences which His Majesty's Solicitor General seeks to refer were unduly lenient. The exception is the defendant Day. In his case the judge was entitled to give substantially greater weight than would generally be appropriate to personal mitigation, because Day's personal mitigation was particularly powerful. In our view, his PTSD and associated mental health issues bore directly on his culpability for this offending. His sentence could certainly have been longer than it was. We do not believe that Day could have had any legitimate complaint if his sentence had been somewhat above seven years' imprisonment. But, by a narrow margin, we are persuaded that the sentence of six years' imprisonment in his case, although lenient, is not unduly lenient.

60. As to the other defendants, we are satisfied that in each of their cases the judge should have made a significantly greater upwards adjustment of the guideline starting point than he did, before making reductions for personal mitigation and for the guilty pleas.

61. We grant leave to refer in each of the cases, including that of Day. In our view, in relation to the other four defendants the sentences were unduly lenient. Emphasising that we are here concerned with the least sentences appropriate in each case, we conclude that the least sentence for each defendant, and the provisional sentence on which it should have been based, are as follows: Dilworth, nine years and nine months' imprisonment (based on a provisional sentence of 13 years); Hague, 14 years' imprisonment (based on a provisional sentence of 16 years); Menagh, nine years and nine months imprisonment, concurrent on each count (based on 15 years); and Fairclough, nine years and four months' imprisonment, concurrent on each count (based on 15 years and six months).

62. In relation to those four defendants, we have considered whether it would be appropriate in any of their cases to exercise our discretion not to increase the sentence which we have found to be unduly lenient. We see no basis for doing so.

63. In summary, therefore, our decisions are as follows. In Blower's case, we grant leave to appeal, but dismiss the appeal. His sentence therefore remains as before.

64. In each of the other cases we grant His Majesty's Solicitor General leave to refer. In Day's case, we are not persuaded that the sentence was unduly lenient and we therefore do not increase it.

65. In each of the other four cases, we quash the sentences imposed below as being unduly lenient. We substitute the following increased sentences of imprisonment: Dilworth, nine years and nine months; Hague, 14 years on each count, concurrent – as before, 98 days will count towards that sentence in respect of the period when he was on bail but subject to a qualifying curfew; Menagh, nine years and nine months on each count, concurrent; and Fairclough, nine years and four months on each count concurrent. ADDENDUM

66. On 13 February 2025 the court held that it was necessary to reopen its determination of Hague’s case, in order to correct an error. The result of that redetermination was that the court set aside the total sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment and substituted concurrent sentences of 11 years 11 months’ imprisonment, with 98 days counting towards that total sentence in respect of the period when Hague was on bail but subject to a qualifying curfew.

67. The sentences of other defendants were not affected by that redetermination in Hague’s case. _____________________________________ 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] ______________________________