"The Crown's position is that [the appellant] was in control of the Rayon line, and he was the one directing the offer for sale and the sale of the drugs in question. Counsel for [the appellant], Miss Heath, does not accept that he was in sole possession of that phone, but there is no evidence of anybody else controlling that line. And I am satisfied to the criminal standard that the phone – as I said, nicknamed the Rayon line – was in fact controlled by [the appellant] at all material times. In the light of the large quantity of drugs messages on the line, it is clear that there was a significant amount of drug dealing in both class A and class B drugs. However, Miss Heath, on behalf of [the appellant], says that the evidence from the telephone download shows that these were offers of, effectively, sales to users, retail sales. There was no evidence on the phone of buying and selling of wholesale amounts of drugs. That is not disputed by Miss Khan on behalf of the Crown. My reading of the sentencing guidelines is that when it refers under leading role to directing or organising buying and selling on a commercial scale, what the guideline has in mind by the phrase 'commercial scale' is wholesale quantities of drugs, as opposed to quantities suitable for end use. If my understanding is correct, then it follows that on the evidence available, while [the appellant] was indeed directing or organising the buying and selling of drugs, this was not on a commercial scale within the meaning of that guideline. The Crown say that [the appellant] was also in a leading role because he had substantial links to and influence on others in a chain. They point to the involvement of Mr Parker as one of the runners of the Rayon line drugs business. Mr Parker indeed himself accepts that he was a runner in the Rayon line drugs business, but there is no evidence as to how many other people were involved. And where the guideline talks about substantial links to an influence on others in the chain, in my judgment, more is required than is in this case. There is no evidence that [the appellant] was close to the original source of drugs. There is evidence of substantial financial or other advantage. There is reference in the evidence to business cards, but I am not satisfied that those business cards were being used as a cover for the selling of drugs. While it is possible that they were, I cannot be satisfied to the criminal standard that that was the case. And there was no suggestion that [the appellant] was abusing a position of trust or responsibility. On the other hand, on any reading of the evidence, [the appellant] did have operational or management function within a chain. He was involving others within the operation, and he did have himself an expectation of significant financial or other advantage, not limited to meeting any habit of his own. He also had an awareness and understanding of the scale of the operation. I am therefore satisfied that on both count 1 and count 2, [the applicant] falls to be sentenced on the basis of significant role. However, the evidence in this case – and it is a conspiracy that lasts three months, it involves both class A and class B, and there is extensive telephone evidence – all that means that it falls at the top end of significant role, in my judgment."
"Applying the guidelines in this case, in my judgment, falling at the top end of the scale for significant role, the sentence I would have passed on [the appellant] for a contested trial on count 1 would be 84 months. I will reduce that by 25 per cent to 63 months. So count 1, 63 months' imprisonment. For count 2, that is conspiracy to supply Class B, as I have said, this will be a concurrent sentence. The sentence would have been one of four years, so 48 months, with 25 per cent credit. That is 36 months concurrent."