Anyiam, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a 26-year-old man, was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment for possessing a class B controlled drug with intent to supply and offering to supply a class B drug. These sentences were concurrent but ordered to run consecutively to a previous 30-month sentence for violent disorder and possession of a machete. The offences related to drug dealing activities conducted via a social media account between May 2019 and September 2021, involving wholesale quantities of skunk cannabis. Police investigations led to the discovery of 608 grams of cannabis at the Appellant’s flat, alongside other evidentiary items. The Appellant was linked to the Snapchat account used for advertising the drugs and was found to have a history of convictions including violent disorder, possession of offensive weapons, and drug offences. The appeal concerns the issue of totality in sentencing, specifically whether the consecutive sentence was appropriate.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the consecutive sentence imposed for the drug offences, following a previous sentence for violent disorder and possession of a weapon, was disproportionate or wrong in principle.
2. How the principle of totality should be applied when sentencing for offences committed prior to other offences for which the offender has already been sentenced.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant’s counsel contended that the imposition of a wholly consecutive sentence was incorrect in principle and resulted in a disproportionate total sentence.
• It was argued that the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the principle of totality by not sufficiently reducing the sentence to reflect the cumulative effect of the sentences.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing in light of the Sentencing Council guideline on totality, which requires courts to first determine the appropriate sentence for the current offences alone and then consider whether any adjustment should be made to account for prior sentences. The court noted that the sentencing judge justified the consecutive sentence due to the different nature of the offences (violent disorder and possession of an offensive weapon versus drug offences). The court further considered that the Appellant had already received concurrent sentences for other earlier offences, and that if all sentences had been passed together, the total sentence would have appropriately reflected totality by combining concurrent and consecutive sentences. Taking these factors into account, the court concluded that the total sentence was not disproportionate or incorrect in principle.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal.

The decision upholds the consecutive sentencing order, confirming that the sentence appropriately accounted for totality and was proportionate given the distinct nature of the offences. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling directly affects the Appellant by affirming the aggregate custodial term.