Hendron, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The case involves the Appellant, a practising barrister aged 42, who was convicted at the Crown Court for multiple offences related to drug offences. Initially pleading not guilty, the Appellant changed his plea to guilty on three counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence under section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, and one count of possession of a Class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The offences involved the Appellant encouraging two clients, both prisoners on remand whom he was representing legally, to supply him with drugs. The Appellant was sentenced to a total of 14 months' imprisonment. The Appellant sought leave to appeal against sentence and an extension of time to do so, which was granted for eight days. The appellate court considered the grounds of appeal and granted leave to appeal on grounds concerning sentencing guidelines and manifest excessiveness of the sentence, while refusing leave on other grounds.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge applied the correct sentencing guidelines in determining the sentence.
2. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge used incorrect sentencing guidelines for the offence.
• The total sentence of 14 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
• The Appellant was unfairly singled out due to his professional status as a barrister.
• A distinction should be drawn between ordinary supply of drugs and encouraging another to supply drugs to oneself.
• Other grounds included failure of defence counsel to mention material mitigation, undue weight given to a co-offender's plea, the judge should have recused himself, and the judge improperly acted akin to a professional regulator.

Respondent's Arguments

• The decision to prosecute was proper and not influenced by the Appellant’s professional status.
• The sentencing judge correctly applied the supply of drugs guideline, adapting it appropriately to the facts.
• The seriousness of the offence was heightened by the Appellant’s role as a professional lawyer encouraging clients to supply drugs.
• The judge was correct to impose an immediate custodial sentence given the gravity of the conduct.
• Other grounds of appeal lacked merit and were summarily dismissed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the absence of specific Sentencing Council guidelines for offences under section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which criminalises encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence. The court explained that the sentencing judge must apply the guidelines relevant to the underlying offence encouraged, here the supply of drugs, and adjust appropriately for the facts.

The court agreed with the sentencing judge's approach to apply the supply of drugs guideline, placing the Appellant in a lesser role category with a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment, reflecting the small quantities and limited scope of supply encouraged. The court emphasized that the Appellant’s status as a practising barrister representing the clients he encouraged to supply drugs was a very serious aggravating factor.

Mitigating factors included the Appellant’s psychological state and the guilty plea, which warranted a 20% reduction in sentence. The court found that the total sentence of 14 months was within the permissible range and not manifestly excessive. The judge’s decision to impose immediate custody was deemed appropriate given the seriousness of the conduct.

The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that he was unfairly singled out due to his professional status, clarifying that prosecution decisions are for the Crown Prosecution Service and not the court. It also dismissed other grounds of appeal as lacking merit, including claims of judicial bias and failure of defence counsel to raise mitigation.

Finally, the court distinguished its role from professional disciplinary bodies, noting that issues of disbarment and professional regulation are outside the scope of sentencing and reserved for the relevant regulatory authorities.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED an extension of time of eight days to seek leave to appeal and GRANTED leave to appeal on grounds concerning sentencing guidelines and manifest excessiveness, but REFUSED leave on all other grounds.

The appeal on the substantive grounds was heard and DISMISSED, affirming the sentence of 14 months' imprisonment.

The direct effect is that the Appellant’s sentence stands as imposed. No new legal precedent was established beyond confirmation of the established approach to sentencing for encouragement offences under section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, particularly when committed by a professional lawyer. The court expressly limited its role to sentencing and did not address professional disciplinary consequences.