Palmer & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 8 November 2021, in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, the judge sentenced the Appellant to 9 years' imprisonment for firearms and drug offences, with a consecutive extended sentence of 10 years (8 years' imprisonment plus a 2-year extended licence) for false imprisonment. The Co-Appellant was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment for false imprisonment. Both applicants sought to renew their applications for permission to appeal against sentence after refusal by a single judge.

On 1 December 2017, armed police executed a search warrant at the Appellant's residence, discovering a loaded firearm, ammunition, cocaine, and a substantial amount of cash. The Appellant refused to answer questions during interviews in 2017 and 2019.

In June 2019, while still under investigation for the earlier offences, the Appellant and Co-Appellant were involved in the false imprisonment of a victim who owed a debt to their father. The victim was abducted, restrained, assaulted, and held overnight while demands for repayment were made. Both applicants initially pleaded not guilty but later changed their pleas to guilty shortly before trial dates.

The pre-sentence report assessed the Appellant as posing a high risk of serious harm. The sentencing judge applied sentencing guidelines and case law to determine appropriate starting points and reductions, taking into account mitigation, late guilty pleas, and totality. The Appellant was found dangerous, resulting in an extended sentence being imposed.

Both applicants’ initial applications for permission to appeal were refused by the single judge, who provided detailed reasons. The applicants renewed their applications before the Full Court, which heard oral submissions and considered specific issues relating to the extended sentence and sentencing calculations.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in the starting points and role assessments for the firearms and drug offences.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in the starting point for the false imprisonment offence and the application of mitigating factors.
3. Whether the extended sentence imposed on the Appellant was lawful and correctly attributed to the false imprisonment offence.
4. Whether the single judge misinterpreted relevant authorities in refusing permission to appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The 7-year starting point for the firearms offence was too high.
• The judge erred in finding the Appellant played a leading role in the drug offences, relying on a semantic distinction in the Sentencing Guidelines regarding financial interest.
• The 8-year custodial term for false imprisonment was excessive, and the judge failed to properly reflect mitigation related to age and progress in prison.
• The extended sentence was wrongly imposed; the Appellant pointed to positive prison conduct and positive references to argue against dangerousness.
• The sentencing remarks were unclear as to which offence the extended licence period applied, causing confusion with prison authorities.

Co-Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point for the false imprisonment offence was too high, relying on prior case law to suggest a lesser sentence.
• The judge failed to properly reflect mitigating factors such as age and progress in prison in the reduction applied to the sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first addressed the firearms and drug offences. It found the 7-year starting point for the firearms offence appropriate under the Sentencing Guidelines, considering the presence of a loaded firearm intended for criminal use and the associated high risk of harm. The judge’s reduction to 5 years accounted for mitigation and the statutory minimum term, which could not be lowered.

Regarding the drug offences, the Court rejected the appellant’s semantic argument about the leading role, emphasizing the Appellant’s active involvement in buying and selling drugs and use of a firearm for protection. The starting point of 8 years was appropriate, and the judge’s reduction to 4 years reflected totality and mitigation.

For the false imprisonment offence, the Court upheld the 10-year starting point, noting the planning, use of restraints, and the victim’s significant physical and psychological injuries. It rejected submissions that prior cases mandated a lower starting point, distinguishing the facts and seriousness here.

The Court found the 20% reduction for mitigation, including age and progress in prison, reasonable. It noted the judge’s wide latitude in determining such reductions and found no manifest excessiveness.

Concerning the extended sentence, the Court acknowledged the judge’s phrasing could have been clearer but concluded that it was evident the 2-year extended licence applied solely to the false imprisonment offence, not the firearms and drug offences. The Court emphasized the importance of clarity in sentencing remarks and expressly confirmed the extended sentence’s proper attribution.

The Court also rejected challenges to the victim impact statement’s use in assessing dangerousness, noting the judge carefully excluded disputed elements and properly relied on the victim’s account.

Finally, the Court emphasized that the single judge’s refusal to grant permission to appeal was well-founded and that renewed applications should not be treated as free opportunities absent new material or arguable grounds.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the renewed applications for permission to appeal against sentence by both applicants.

The Court expressly clarified that the extended sentence imposed on the Appellant, including the 2-year extended licence period, relates exclusively to the false imprisonment offence and not to the firearms and drug offences. This clarification resolves any ambiguity for enforcement authorities.

The decision affirms the sentencing judge’s application of sentencing guidelines and principles, confirms the appropriateness of the sentences imposed, and does not establish new precedent beyond clarifying the extended sentence attribution. The direct effect is the dismissal of the applicants’ attempts to overturn or reduce their sentences.