"I have considered the papers in your case and your proposed grounds of appeal. You were sentenced to a total of 21½ years' custody, having pleaded guilty to your part in a huge illegal drugs importation conspiracy, and to two firearms offences. Your sentence was structured as follows: Conspiracy: 16½ years Firearms offences: 5 years each, concurrent Consecutive total: 21½ years. You wish to be able to argue that this is manifestly excessive, in particular because the sentencing Judge wrongly assessed you as having had a leading role in the conspiracy, because he had insufficient regard to totality in structuring your sentence, and because he gave insufficient weight to the mitigating factors in your case. I can see from his sentencing remarks that the Judge had addressed himself to the Sentencing Council Guideline for unlawful Class A drug importation. That says this: 'In assessing culpability, the sentencer should weigh up all the factors of the case to determine role. Where there are characteristics present which fall under different role categories, or where the level of the offender's role is affected by the scale of the operation, the court should balance these characteristics to reach a fair assessment of the offender's culpability.' The conspiracy in which you were involved was of enormous proportions. The Judge noted: 'It is hard to comprehend the quantity of cocaine that the EncroChat messages revealed to have been imported, or was about to be imported, could all have happened within the space of approximately two and a half months. The message detail somewhere in the region of 1000 kilograms of cocaine being imported in 50 separate consignments, and then being distributed in smaller quantities throughout the country.' Only two individuals had responsibility for the totality of these importations. You worked directly to one of them. You met the lorries shortly after the drugs had entered in the country. You organised the division and distribution from there to other drivers. You personally made 12 collections and were responsible for 57 deliveries – altogether about 487kg of high purity cocaine. Within the characteristics identified by the Guideline, on the facts to which you pleaded, the Judge was entitled to find that you were directing or organising buying and selling on a commercial scale, had substantial links to, and influence on, others in a chain, and you had close links to the original source. There is no arguable error in his concluding that you had a leading role in this operation. The Judge was also entitled to note, in assessing harm, that you had been handling quantities 'far outside the sentencing guidelines' – by a factor, indeed, approaching a hundredfold. The Guideline states: 'Where the operation is on the most serious and commercial scale, involving quantities of drugs significantly higher than category 1, sentences of 20 years and above may be appropriate, depending on the offender's role.' Your sentence of 16½ years after credit for plea represents a total indicative sentence of 22 years. That is consistent with appropriate aggravation for the full scale of the operation you were helping direct, and with the use of EncroChat to do so ('use of sophisticated methods or technologies in order to avoid or impede detection'). It is also consistent with appropriate mitigation for the matters put before the Judge on your behalf, which he was entitled to have weighed modestly in all the circumstances. It is consistent with the Guideline, and with the guidance of this Court for sentencing huge conspiracies and the enormous damage they do to our society. There is no arguable error here. Your firearms offences were subject to statutory minimum sentencing. According to the Totality Guideline, an overall consecutive sentence structure will ordinarily be appropriate where, although the offending may be related, (a) it involves an aggravating element that requires separate recognition, or (b) one or more offences qualify for a statutory minimum sentence and concurrent sentences would improperly undermine that minimum or (c) the overall criminality will not sufficiently be reflected by concurrent sentences. The Judge was entitled to choose an overall consecutive structure on any or all of these grounds. The general principle of totality requires that the overall sentence should 'reflect all of the offending behaviour with reference to overall harm and culpability, together with the aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the offences and those personal to the offender, and be just and proportionate'. The Judge directed himself to the requirements of totality, and indicated that the individual components of your sentence had been reduced accordingly. The indicative sentence of 22 years for the conspiracy was, as well as being consistent with the matters indicated above, also consistent with allowance having been made for totality. It had also properly been open to the Judge to have sentenced the firearm offences above the statutory minimum. According to the Firearms Poss Culpability offences, in the relevant criminal context. The starting point for a single A/2 offence is 7 years. Aggravation for the conspiracy and consecutive sentencing dimensions would have been appropriate. The Judge's having sentenced at the statutory minimum level is therefore consistent with proper allowance having been made for totality. It is not, in all of these circumstances, arguable that your sentence is wrong in principle, manifestly excessive, or otherwise than just and proportionate to the totality of your very serious offending. Leave to appeal is refused accordingly."