{"id":657524,"date":"2026-04-23T09:31:19","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T07:31:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-sam-whicker\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T09:31:19","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T07:31:19","slug":"rex-v-sam-whicker","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-sam-whicker\/","title":{"rendered":"Rex v Sam Whicker"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH: 1. On 6\u00a0July\u00a02022 before the Crown Court at Southwark, having indicated that he would plead guilty at the first opportunity, the offender was sentenced to 4\u00a0years' imprisonment for an\u00a0offence of being concerned in the supply of a\u00a0controlled drug of Class\u00a0A, namely cocaine. The Attorney General now seeks leave to refer that sentence to the court on the grounds that it is unduly lenient. 2. The Attorney General is represented before us by Ms\u00a0Organ, who did not appear below. The offender is represented, as he was in the court below, by Mr\u00a0Arnold. 3. The offender's conviction arose out of a\u00a0very substantial conspiracy for the supply of cocaine in the area including Walton-on-Thames and Staines. It was the prosecution case that the conspiracy involved the supply of over 200\u00a0kgs of cocaine. 4. We shall in due course look at the sentences that were imposed upon others who were either convicted or pleaded guilty to participation in that conspiracy. It is important, however, to bear in mind at all times that the offender fell to be sentenced for a\u00a0single count of being concerned in the supply of cocaine. A\u00a0second charge alleging conspiracy to supply Class\u00a0A drugs was ordered to lie on the file on usual terms. 5. The facts giving rise to the count of which the offender was convicted are not in dispute and can be shortly stated. 6. The offender acted as a\u00a0courier, driving 90\u00a0kgs of cocaine from Walton-on-Thames to Northolt in his Volkswagen Transporter. This was in the context of the wider conspiracy. He drove the cocaine from Barry Wilkinson in Walton-on-Thames to David Green and Darrell Logan in Northolt and the drugs were stored at Darrell Logan's address. The facts in more detail are as follows. 7. Operation Bettergates was an\u00a0investigation into an\u00a0Organised Crime Group involved in the conspiracy to supply Class\u00a0A drugs (cocaine). This conspiracy continued between March and October\u00a02020 and was said to involve over 200\u00a0kgs of cocaine. 8. During the morning of 29\u00a0October\u00a02020 Barry Wilkinson purchased four black and grey Slazenger holdalls, into which 90\u00a0kgs of cocaine were placed, and drove these blocks of cocaine from Staines to Walton-on-Thames. Once in the Walton-on-Thames area, Barry Wilkinson transferred the Slazenger holdalls containing the cocaine into a\u00a0white Volkswagen Transporter (registration number DX67 NNC). 9. During the afternoon of 29\u00a0October the offender collected the Volkswagen Transporter vehicle from Mr\u00a0Wilkinson. After a\u00a0short exchange between the offender and Mr\u00a0Wilkinson, the offender drove the vehicle to Sentinel Close in Northolt, where he was met by David Green and Darrell Logan. The offender, David Green and Darrell Logan all congregated at the rear of the Volkswagen Transporter, before Mr\u00a0Green and Mr Logan took the four Slazenger holdalls containing the cocaine to a\u00a0nearby address associated with Mr\u00a0Logan. The offender drove the Volkswagen Transporter vehicle away. 10. A\u00a0short time later, police officers attended at Mr\u00a0Logan's address and found the Slazenger bags containing 90 1-kg blocks of cocaine powder with a\u00a0purity of between 92-95 per cent. Mr\u00a0Green, Mr\u00a0Logan and Mr\u00a0Wilkinson were all arrested that day. 11. The offender's DNA was recovered from the shoulder strap of one of these holdalls and his fingerprint was recovered from a bottle within the Volkswagen Transporter van, of which he was the registered keeper. On 3 November\u00a02020 he purchased a\u00a0Eurostar ticket to Amsterdam and travelled there that evening. He was arrested on 22\u00a0February\u00a02022 at the Premier Inn in Hanger Lane. He had \u00a3615 on him. He was interviewed under caution and answered no comment to all questions asked. He was charged on 26\u00a0February\u00a02022. 12. All the other defendants were sentenced by HHJ Griffith on occasions before the sentencing of this offender. They all pleaded guilty to their parts in a conspiracy to supply Class\u00a0A drugs (cocaine) between 1\u00a0March\u00a02020 and 31 October 2020. It was said that David Green and Barry Wilkinson were directing a\u00a0sophisticated and well-organised criminal enterprise to supply over 200\u00a0kgs of cocaine. 13. David Green received a\u00a0sentence of 13\u00a0years and 6 months' imprisonment. He was said to be the "top man" in the dock, found to have close links to the source of the drugs. He expected substantial financial reward and had influence over others in the conspiracy. He was sentenced on the basis that he may have worked under the pressure and influence of the EncroChat handle "QPR" but had a\u00a0leading role. He organised the buying and selling of cocaine on a\u00a0commercial scale. He used vehicles with concealed compartments. His offending was aggravated by using an\u00a0EncroChat phone and concealed compartments in vehicles. The drugs recovered had a\u00a0high purity. He showed remorse and had no relevant previous convictions. He received 25 per cent credit for his guilty plea. The starting point after a\u00a0trial was said to be 19\u00a0years' imprisonment (which was well above the sentencing guidelines). 14. Mr\u00a0Wilkinson received a\u00a0sentence of 10\u00a0years and 4 months' imprisonment. He was said to be the "next one down in the line" from Mr\u00a0Green. He was found to have a\u00a0significant role and to be involved in the management of wholesale supplies of drugs and bookkeeping for the criminal enterprise. He moved 100\u00a0kgs of drugs on the last day of the conspiracy. The offending was aggravated by the use of an\u00a0EncroChat phone. He had no relevant convictions, had good character and showed remorse. The starting point after a\u00a0trial would have been 15\u00a0years' imprisonment (which again was well above the sentencing guidelines). He received 25 per cent credit for his guilty plea. 15. Mr\u00a0Logan received a\u00a0sentence of 9\u00a0years' imprisonment. He had been looking after 104\u00a0kgs of Class\u00a0A drugs at the time of his arrest and was found to have a\u00a0role between \u201clesser\u201d and \u201csignificant\u201d because he was working for other people but had an awareness of the scale of the operation. An\u00a0aggravating feature was the purity of the drugs. He had no relevant previous convictions and his imprisonment would have an effect upon his father, who was unwell. The starting point after a\u00a0trial would have been 13\u00a0years' imprisonment (which again would have been above the sentencing guidelines). He received 25\u00a0per\u00a0cent credit for his guilty plea. 16. Three other defendants who had lesser involvement had also been sentenced by the judge previously. We shall refer in more detail to those sentences and to the judge's reference to them a\u00a0little later in this judgment. 17. The offender had 38 convictions for 71 offences between 5 December 2006 and 31 May 2019. He did not have any convictions relating to Class\u00a0A offences or the supply of drugs. i) Between 2006 and 2016 he had numerous convictions for possession of Class\u00a0B drugs, dishonesty offences (including burglary), interfering with vehicles, criminal damage, driving offences and failures to comply with court orders. ii) In 2016 there was an\u00a0offence of interfering with a\u00a0vehicle. (iii) In 2017 there was an\u00a0offence of a\u00a0burglary of a\u00a0dwelling, another burglary which was of a\u00a0non-dwelling, and one theft of a\u00a0vehicle. (iv) In 2019 there was an\u00a0offence of battery. 18. There was a\u00a0letter before the court from the offender's mother, which we have read. She described the offence as being "out of character" for the offender but acknowledged that his criminal lifestyle started when he was young. She set out that his childhood had not been easy because she was a single parent and his father was not a\u00a0consistent male role model. The offender had a\u00a0promising career in rugby, but he had had a\u00a0serious moped accident which meant he was unable to play rugby any longer. The offender had a\u00a0child when he was 19\u00a0years old. There was also a\u00a0letter from the offender's sister (which we have read) setting out that her family supported the offender and believed that he was willing to better his life. 19. At the hearing for the sentencing of the offender, prosecution counsel submitted that when assessing the offender's culpability there were elements of both lesser role and significant role as the offender's role was limited to the transportation of drugs under the direction of others above him in the chain and he had no influence of those above him in the chain. Because of the large quantity of drugs the offender had transported, it was reasonable to infer that he was doing so for significant financial gain; and he must have had some awareness and understanding of the scale of the operation he was involved in. It was submitted on behalf of the prosecution that harm was outside the sentencing guidelines and above category 1 because the offender was transporting 90\u00a0kgs of cocaine. 20. Defence counsel, Mr\u00a0Arnold, submitted that the offender was unaware of the quantity of the drugs with which he was involved and that the quantity of drugs was less relevant because of his status as a\u00a0courier. It was not accepted that the level of harm was above the sentencing guidelines. It was submitted that it was relevant that the offender had pleaded guilty and fell to be sentenced for a\u00a0substantive offence, unlike the other offenders who had pleaded guilty to the conspiracy. The judge was invited to sentence the offender in line with the other couriers in the case. It was submitted that the offender was remorseful, had taken steps to improve himself while in prison and that his age (he then being 31) and lack of maturity were relevant to his offending. 21. The current Definitive Guideline for Drug Offences applies to this offence. It is common ground that based on quantity the present case falls within category 1 for harm. There is an issue (to which we will return) about whether the offender should be treated as having a\u00a0lesser role or a\u00a0significant role or as somewhere in between. 22. The guideline indicates that based on a\u00a0supply of 5\u00a0kgs of cocaine the starting point for a category 1 case where the offender has a\u00a0lesser role is 7\u00a0years, with a\u00a0category range from 6-9\u00a0years; where the offender has a\u00a0significant role, the starting point is 10\u00a0years' custody, with a\u00a0category range from 9-12\u00a0years' custody. The starting points apply to offenders irrespective of plea or previous convictions. 23. It is well established that where the quantities involved are significantly higher than the indicative quantity of 5\u00a0kgs, that will exert an\u00a0upward pressure on sentence. This is expressly recognised by the guideline, which states: "Where the operation is on the most serious and commercial scale, involving a\u00a0quantity of drugs significantly higher than category 1, sentences of 20\u00a0years and above may be appropriate, depending on the offender's role." That citation is directly applicable to offenders who take a\u00a0leading role, but the principle of upward adjustment to reflect quantities that are significantly higher than the indicative quantities listed in the guideline is of general application. 24. Features identified in the guideline as indicating a significant role include (i) expectation of significant financial or other advantage; and (ii) some awareness and understanding of the scale of the operation. Features indicating a\u00a0lesser role include (i) performing a limited function under direction; (ii)not having any influence on those above in a\u00a0chain; (iii) very little, if any, awareness or understanding of the scale of the operation; and (iv) expectation of limited, if any, financial or other advantages. 25. In sentencing the offender the judge adopted the following approach. i) He observed that the offender had committed a\u00a0lot of offences over the years but that this stuck out "like a sore thumb". ii) He described the offender's involvement in the supply of 90\u00a0kgs of cocaine as an "enormous" amount. iii) The offender's DNA was found on one of the straps of a\u00a0bag containing cocaine which must have weighed as much as a holiday suitcase. iv) There was no evidence that the offender knew exactly how much cocaine he was transporting, but he must have known that each bag contained a\u00a0substantial quantity of drugs and that he had some awareness of the scale of the operation in which he was involved. v) The judge found that the offender had either a\u00a0"lesser role or possibly just touching into significant role". vi) In terms of harm, the sentencing guidelines stopped at 5\u00a0kgs, and he must reflect in sentence that the offender was transporting far more than 5\u00a0kgs of cocaine when he sentenced him; but he did not consider that he should sentence outside the sentencing guideline categories as he had with others involved in the conspiracy. vii) He found that the offender was a\u00a0"courier" like Messrs Thompson, Glynn and Bradley. viii) He found that the starting point for the offender should be akin to that for Mr\u00a0Bradley, who was arrested with a\u00a07-kg concealed consignment and who had been coerced by someone else with a\u00a0gun. ix) He found that the starting point was one of 7\u00a0years' imprisonment. There were no aggravating features and so he gave the offender credit of 1 year for his personal mitigation and remorse, and then applied a\u00a0one-third discount for his plea, thereby reaching the sentence to which we have already referred. 26. In the course of his sentencing remarks the judge referred to the fact that he had adjusted the sentences on the three organisers of the conspiracy by 50 per cent. As he explained it, this took into account the longer period of their involvement; but he expressly referred to the fact that the quantities taken into account when sentencing them were much the same as the quantities involved in this offender's operation. He then identified points of similarity and difference between the offender and the other three conspirators who he had sentenced for their lesser roles in the conspiracy. 27. The judge had regarded Mr Carl Thompson as "more than a mere courier" because he had an EncroChat phone. Although he had pleaded guilty to the conspiracy and his proved involvement was in relation to 16\u00a0kgs, reference to the sentencing remarks for Mr\u00a0Thompson show that the judge regarded him as having been involved in the conspiracy for more than just a\u00a0month and having been involved with moving other drugs in addition to those that had been strictly proved. The judge had reached a\u00a0starting point of 9\u00a0years for Mr\u00a0Thompson. Reference to his remarks when sentencing Mr\u00a0Thompson show that this point was taken as being somewhere between a\u00a010-year starting point for a significant involvement with 5\u00a0kgs and a 7-year starting point for lesser involvement, again with 5\u00a0kgs. He had reduced the notional sentence from 9 to 7-and-a-half years to reflect the fact that Mr\u00a0Thompson had no previous relevant previous convictions, had withdrawn from the conspiracy before it came to an\u00a0end and had expressed remorse. The 25 per cent reduction for plea was applied to that figure to reach the sentence of 5-and-a-half years that had been passed. 28. Mr\u00a0Stephen Glynn drove a\u00a0van with a\u00a0concealed space in it. He did not have an\u00a0EncroChat phone but was said by the judge to be more involved than the offender although the amount with which he was involved was impossible to say. Mr\u00a0Glynn had been involved in the conspiracy for only part of its duration. References to his sentencing remarks when sentencing Mr\u00a0Glynn shows that the judge had assessed him as being "somewhat below" Mr\u00a0Thompson. He therefore treated him as having lesser culpability, which led to a\u00a0starting point of 8\u00a0years. Although Mr\u00a0Glynn had previous convictions for violence, they were not treated as an\u00a0aggravating feature. The identified mitigation was that he had got out of the conspiracy through his own activity, he had expressed remorse and there was a\u00a0supportive letter from his mother saying that he intended to mend his ways. On the basis of that mitigation the judge had reduced the sentence by 18 months, reaching a\u00a0notional sentence of 7\u00a0years, before applying a\u00a025 per cent reduction for plea. 29. Mr\u00a0Scott Bradley had pleaded guilty on the basis (accepted by the prosecution) that someone had coerced him with a\u00a0gun, though not to the point of giving him a full defence. Reference to his remarks when sentencing Mr\u00a0Bradley showed that the judge considered this made a\u00a0difference when comparing Mr\u00a0Bradley with the other two "couriers". He was arrested with a\u00a07-kg consignment. The judge reached a notional sentence of 7\u00a0years taking into account the coercion but before applying a\u00a0further reduction of 18 months for personal mitigation and 25 per cent for plea to reach a\u00a0sentence of 4\u00a0years and 2 months. The starting point of 7\u00a0years was below the normal starting point for limited involvement in a\u00a0category 1 case\u00a0— that no doubt reflecting the element of coercion. 30. It will be noted from this summary that no upward adjustment was made in any of the three cases of the conspirators on account of the quantity of drugs involved. This is best explained on the basis that the quantities demonstrated in relation to those three defendants were relatively limited. 31. The judge said that these three comparators gave him a bracket where he should consider how he would fit in the offender's offending. He would not put the offender above someone who was involved in the conspiracy with an\u00a0EncroChat phone even if that person had 16\u00a0kgs and the present offender had 90 (an\u00a0apparent reference to the position of Mr\u00a0Thompson). He then said: "The real difficulty for you is the very large amount of drugs which, as I\u00a0say, must have given you some awareness and understanding of the scale of the operation and because of that I am starting at a\u00a0starting point of 7\u00a0years." The judge then said there were no aggravating features. He reduced the notional sentence by 12 months for the offender's expression of remorse, which the judge rightly put in the context of the offender's extensive previous offending. He then applied a\u00a0one-third reduction for the offender's plea of guilty. 32. The Attorney General submits that the high purity of the drugs (92-95 per cent) should have been regarded as an aggravating feature. The court below did not identify purity as an aggravating feature and so far as we are aware it was not identified as an\u00a0aggravating feature by the prosecution although the purity was noted in the prosecution Sentencing Note. 33. Turning to the applicability of the guideline, the Attorney General submits the offender's role straddled "lesser" and "significant" because, as found by the sentencing judge, the offender had an\u00a0awareness of the scale of the operation because of the amount of the drugs he was transporting. Even if he did not know the exact quantity of the drugs he was transporting, the Attorney General submits that the judge was right to find that he knew he had four bags and that each bag contained a\u00a0substantial quantity of drugs. The judge was also right to find that there must have been an\u00a0expectation of substantial financial gain. 34. It is submitted by the Attorney General that the level of harm is above category 1 because the amount of drugs which the offender transported far outstripped the 5\u00a0kgs which is the indicative quantity for category 1 harm; and he knew, at least in general terms, the very large amount of drugs that he was transporting in the bags, one of which he was shown to have handled. His role is said to be in contrast with the other couriers convicted of participation in the conspiracy who, though making multiple trips had not transported anything like the quantity that the offender had. On this basis and taking into account the purity of the seized drugs, the Attorney General submits that the proper starting point was therefore above or at least at the very top end of the range for category 1 lesser role and should have been at least 9\u00a0years' imprisonment. 35. There is no separate criticism of the judge's decision to reduce the sentence by 1 year to reflect the offender's personal mitigation or of the one-third reduction for the offender's guilty plea. Conversely, there can be no suggestion that these reductions should have been increased. Applying the judge's reductions to a\u00a0notional sentence of 9\u00a0years' imprisonment, the Attorney General submits that the least sentence that could properly have been passed was one of 5\u00a0years and 4 months. 36. Mr\u00a0Arnold repeats the oral and written submissions that he made to the judge below, which we have read in full. His primary submission to the court below was that there was no evidence that the defendant knew the amount of the drugs he was couriering. In any event he submitted that the weight of the drugs is a\u00a0secondary consideration when dealing with a courier with limited knowledge and he warned and warns against conflating, as he puts it, the weight of the drugs with the offender's role. He also submits that there is no evidence the offender knew the purity of the drugs, though he does not accept that would be relevant in any event. That said, he accepted before the judge and accepts before us that the quantity of drugs is a\u00a0serious aggravating factor even if, as he contends, the offender did not know the scale of what was going on. 37. In his written submissions and his submissions to the court below, Mr\u00a0Arnold was astute to draw attention to the difference between the counts for which the conspirators were sentenced and the count to which the offender pleaded and fell to be sentenced. He submitted below, as he submits to us, that on the facts of this case it is a\u00a0significant distinction and one that should be reflected in the sentence to be passed on the offender. 38. Before us the central submission which Mr\u00a0Arnold made and emphasised with considerable power was that the offender was just a\u00a0courier and that the starting point in his case should not be elevated above those applied for the other couriers. He concentrated upon the limited time that the offender had to appreciate the quantities involved and he characterises the offender's involvement as being that of a\u00a0"mere courier" for 40 minutes, transporting one consignment from A to B. He therefore submits that the sentence passed by the judge was not lenient but was entirely appropriate. 39. In our judgment there can be no possible criticism of the judge's assessment that the offender knew, at least in general terms, the very large quantity of the drugs that he was transporting. He was aware that he had four large holdalls and that they contained a\u00a0very substantial quantity of drugs as he had seen them in the back of his van and was shown by his DNA to have handled one of them. The bulk, represented by 20\u00a0kgs or more in each bag, must have been apparent to him. The judge was right to describe it as "an enormous amount" or even "four enormous amounts", pointing out that each bag must have weighed about the same as a\u00a0large suitcase taken on a\u00a0family holiday by air. 40. There can also be no possible criticism of the judge's assessment that the sheer quantity of drugs in his van must have led to some awareness and understanding of the scale of the operation with which he was concerned. We do not forget for a\u00a0moment that the operation with which he was concerned was the transportation of 90\u00a0kgs of high purity cocaine and not any broader conspiracy. Even so, seen as a\u00a0single transaction, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that it was very serious and on a\u00a0commercial scale. This was not in any sense a "normal" couriering operation, involving 5, 10 or even 15 or so kgs, such as might be entrusted to a\u00a0"normal" courier either as a\u00a0single or as multiple transportations. The sheer quantity of the drugs that were entrusted to the offender lead inevitably to an\u00a0inference that he was trusted with such an\u00a0amount, that there would have been an expectation of significant financial advantage for him and that he had some real awareness and understanding of the scale of the transportation that he was undertaking. These considerations point towards a\u00a0conclusion that the offender took a\u00a0significant role in the operation, albeit that it was limited to transporting the drugs. 41. Factors pointing to a lesser role are relatively slight. It can properly be said that as a\u00a0courier he performed a\u00a0limited role under direction and that he had no influence upon those above him in the chain; but that is all. 42. Viewed overall, it would have been open to the judge to treat the offender as having a leading role, albeit at the bottom end of the category. Although he said in the course of his remarks that the very substantial quantities that the offender was transporting made him "consider the significant role", he did not express a\u00a0final conclusion about where he placed the offender's culpability by reference to the guideline categories. In our judgment had he done so, the most favourable conclusion he could have reached was that this offending carried characteristics of a\u00a0leading role with some elements indicative of a\u00a0lesser role and that therefore, adopting whatever terms he felt appropriate, the offender's culpability either straddled lesser and significant roles, or, as another way of saying the same thing, that the offender's culpability fell either at the top of the \u201clesser\u201d involvement or towards the bottom of \u201csignificant\u201d involvement. 43. Turning to categorisation of harm, 90\u00a0kgs is 18 times the indicative amount for cocaine of 5\u00a0kgs. That quantity should exercise substantial upwards pressure on any starting point that may be selected. In theory at least, the purity of the cocaine is also relevant to the harm to be anticipated from the onward sale of the drugs to their ultimate users; but we leave that out of account as it was not raised as an aggravating feature in the court below. 44. The harm that would be caused by those enormous quantities of drugs is not affected by the state of the offender's knowledge about the scale of the transaction. The fact that he was aware of the scale of the operation goes to culpability, as explained above. However, the very large quantities of drugs require a\u00a0significant upward adjustment to a\u00a0notional starting point because the "normal" starting point for a\u00a0category 1 offence is based upon an indicative quantity of 5\u00a0kgs and the court in this case is concerned with approximately 18 times that amount. It is important in our judgment to recognise at this point the distinction between the single transaction count to which the offender pleaded guilty and the conspiracy counts to which the three lesser offenders who had previously been sentenced had pleaded guilty. As we have identified above, the three lesser offenders had to be sentenced for their\u00a0limited role in a conspiracy where no specific findings were made that demonstrated involvement in or awareness of the overall scale of the conspiracy or the very large quantities involved. The offender's case was different. Although the count of which he was convicted related to only one transaction, it involved his direct involvement in enormous quantities of drugs. Had he been concerned with a\u00a0shipment of either 5\u00a0kgs or even a few multiples of 5\u00a0kgs, it might have been possible to draw a favourable analogy when assessing his overall criminality by reference to that of the other three lesser offenders based on their accepted involvement in the conspiracy, but the enormous quantities with which he was directly concerned place the offender's criminality in a\u00a0very different light. 45. We consider that the judge's use of the three lesser offenders as benchmarks or comparators was materially and seriously flawed because of his failure to appreciate the full significance of the enormous quantities that this offender transported. Even if one sets aside this disparity, we consider that it was not reasonably possible to conclude by way of comparison that an\u00a0appropriate starting point for the offender was 7\u00a0years for four main reasons. i) First, the judge started at the same point that he had taken for Scott Bradley, yet Mr\u00a0Bradley was sentenced on the basis both that his role was a limited and lesser role, and that he had been coerced into it with the involvement with a\u00a0gun; there was no question of upwards adjustment for quantities. In the offender's case there was no question of coercion and his culpability was not simply to be assessed on the basis of a purely limited role. Accordingly, even before applying an\u00a0uplift for quantities, the notional starting point for the offender should have been significantly above that selected for Mr\u00a0Bradley. ii) Second, the judge's approach was inconsistent with the approach he had adopted in relation to Mr\u00a0Thompson. In Mr\u00a0Thompson's case (as in the offender's) he identified features indicating a\u00a0significant role and others more indicative of a\u00a0limited role. His response in Mr\u00a0Thompson's case was roughly to split the difference between the starting points for limited and significant roles respectively, leading him to start at 9\u00a0years. We are unable to identify any reason why the judge did not adopt a\u00a0consistent approach in relation to this offender. iii) Third, we are not able to identify any respect in which the offender had a\u00a0lesser involvement than Mr\u00a0Glynn, save that he was being sentenced for one transaction rather than for involvement in the conspiracy as such. Given that the judge had recognised that the correct starting point for Mr\u00a0Glynn as someone with a\u00a0limited role and no association with great quantities of drugs was 8\u00a0years, we are unable to identify any way in which comparison with Mr\u00a0Glynn could lead to a\u00a0starting point in the offender's case of 7\u00a0years. iv) Fourth, as is apparent from what we have already said, the fact that the offender's culpability straddled or had elements of both lesser and significant roles should have exerted upward pressure, resulting in upward movement from the starting point of a lesser role of 8\u00a0years. 46. The judge recognised that the quantity went to the question of the offender's awareness but he did not make any adjustment to reflect the enormous quantities that the offender had transported. In our judgment there is no reasonable justification for not doing so in the particular circumstances of this case. 47. For these reasons we are driven to the conclusion that the sentence imposed on the offender, starting as it did from a point of 7\u00a0years, cannot be justified. The conclusion that the offender's role straddled the categories of lesser and significant, however that is expressed, provides a\u00a0strong indicator that the starting point should have been above the starting point of 7\u00a0years, or 8\u00a0years for a\u00a0person who has a\u00a0lesser role. Once the enormous quantities are factored in, there should have been a further upward adjustment. 48. For these reasons, we conclude that the sentence imposed on the offender was not merely lenient but unduly lenient. We accept the submission of the Attorney General that any sentence based on a\u00a0notional sentence of less than 9\u00a0years before personal mitigation and plea cannot be justified as being within the bounds of reasonable leniency. The least sentence that could reasonably have been imposed in our judgment would have been one that started at a\u00a0notional starting point of 9 years, reduced by 1 year to 8\u00a0years for mitigation, and then reduced by a\u00a0further one-third for plea to 5\u00a0years and 4 months. 49. We therefore give leave, quash the sentence of 4\u00a0years imposed by the judge and substitute a\u00a0sentence of 5\u00a0years and 4 months. Thank you both. Mr\u00a0Arnold, it will come as cold comfort but it could not have been put better.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH: 1. On 6 July 2022 before the Crown Court at Southwark, having indicated that he would plead guilty at the first opportunity, the offender was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment for an offence of being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug of Class A, namely cocaine. The Attorney General now seeks leave to refer that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[10954,7621,8346,15578,8347],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-657524","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-drugs","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-offender","kji_keyword-starting","kji_keyword-years","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nRex v Sam Whicker - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-sam-whicker\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rex v Sam Whicker\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH: 1. On 6 July 2022 before the Crown Court at Southwark, having indicated that he would plead guilty at the first opportunity, the offender was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment for an offence of being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug of Class A, namely cocaine. The Attorney General now seeks leave to refer that...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-sam-whicker\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"27 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-sam-whicker\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-sam-whicker\\\/\",\"name\":\"Rex v Sam Whicker - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T07:31:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-sam-whicker\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-sam-whicker\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rex-v-sam-whicker\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Rex v Sam Whicker\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rex v Sam Whicker - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-sam-whicker\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rex v Sam Whicker","og_description":"LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH: 1. On 6 July 2022 before the Crown Court at Southwark, having indicated that he would plead guilty at the first opportunity, the offender was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment for an offence of being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug of Class A, namely cocaine. The Attorney General now seeks leave to refer that...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-sam-whicker\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"27 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-sam-whicker\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-sam-whicker\/","name":"Rex v Sam Whicker - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T07:31:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-sam-whicker\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-sam-whicker\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/rex-v-sam-whicker\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Rex v Sam Whicker"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/657524","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=657524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=657524"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=657524"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=657524"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=657524"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=657524"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=657524"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=657524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}