Rasoul, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple offences involving class A drugs and possession of criminal property across several dates in 2021 and 2022. The offences included supplying heroin and crack cocaine, possessing criminal property, assaulting emergency workers, and possession of bladed articles. The offences occurred on 14 December 2021, 11 February 2022, and 8 April 2022. Following pleas at Magistrates' Courts, the Appellant was committed for sentence to the Crown Court. On 1 November 2022, the Crown Court judge imposed an overall sentence of 5 years and 3 months' imprisonment, comprising concurrent and consecutive terms for the various offences.

The Appellant applied for a two-day extension of time to renew an application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by a single judge, which was granted. The offences involved police observations of drug transactions, searches revealing drugs, cash, mobile phones, weapons, and notes indicating drug dealing activities. The Appellant was born in 2002 and had a significant prior criminal record. A pre-sentence report assessed the Appellant as posing a high likelihood of reoffending and a medium risk of serious harm, noting financial motivation for the offences and some remorse.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed for the drug supply offences were manifestly excessive, particularly the judge's starting point for sentencing.
2. Whether insufficient regard was paid to the Appellant's youth in sentencing.
3. Whether insufficient regard was paid to the Appellant's mitigation.
4. Whether a greater credit for guilty pleas (33% rather than 25%) should have been afforded for the drug offences committed in April 2022.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentences for the drug supply offences were manifestly excessive due to an excessively high starting point.
• The sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider the Appellant's youth.
• The sentencing judge did not give adequate weight to the Appellant's mitigating factors.
• The Appellant should have received 33% credit for guilty pleas instead of 25% for the April 2022 offences.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court agreed with the single judge's analysis that the overall sentence was within a reasonable range for the offences committed, noting the starting point was within the guideline range for a single drug offence. The court emphasized the Appellant's significant prior record, persistent offending despite arrests, and the period over which the offences were committed. The court found no arguable basis to contend the sentence was manifestly excessive. Regarding credit for guilty pleas, the court upheld the judge's decision to allow only 25% credit for the April 2022 offences, noting the Appellant was aware of the charges and circumstances. However, the court identified an error in the sentencing terminology: given the Appellant's age at sentencing, the custodial sentences should have been expressed as detention in a young offender institution rather than imprisonment. The court allowed the appeal on this basis and substituted the sentences accordingly, maintaining the overall length of custody.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeal solely on the basis that the custodial sentences should be expressed as detention in a young offender institution rather than imprisonment due to the Appellant's age.

The direct effect is that the Appellant's sentence remains five years and three months in custody, but the nature of the custodial sentence is amended to reflect appropriate sentencing for a young offender. No broader precedent was established by this decision.