Thompson, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

In the early morning of 14 November 2023, the Appellant was arrested at an address in Feltham for her involvement in a West London drug dealing operation known as "the T Line," which operated between 4 September 2023 and 25 October 2023. Intelligence and phone analysis linked two phone numbers used to send bulk messages inviting purchases of heroin and cocaine to the Appellant and a co-defendant. Police seized multiple phones, cash, and quantities of crack cocaine and heroin at the address and the Appellant's nearby home. At the time of arrest, the Appellant was six months pregnant.

At a plea and trial preparation hearing on 13 December 2023, the Appellant pleaded guilty to five counts related to drug supply and possession. Her plea was based on involvement under duress to pay off a debt to a former partner who had threatened her and the co-defendant. This basis was accepted by the prosecution. The Appellant gave birth on 12 February 2024 and was sentenced on 13 March 2024 by Mr Recorder Krepski in the Crown Court at Isleworth.

The Recorder considered the Appellant's antecedents, which included 12 convictions for 28 offences, some involving violence and possession of Class A drugs, but no previous drug trafficking convictions. No pre-sentence report was available, as two applications for such a report had been declined.

The Recorder categorized the Appellant's role as between lesser and significant culpability within harm category 3 for street dealing. He identified aggravating factors including previous convictions and mitigating factors such as the Appellant's young age and new motherhood. The Recorder imposed a sentence of 38 months' imprisonment on the lead counts after a 25% reduction for guilty pleas, with concurrent shorter sentences for possession counts.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Recorder miscategorized the Appellant's role in the drug dealing operation and whether her culpability was towards the lesser end of the scale within harm category 3.
2. Whether excessive weight was given to the Appellant's antecedents, particularly given the absence of prior drug trafficking convictions.
3. Whether insufficient weight was given to mitigating circumstances, especially the Appellant's status as a new mother.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant's role was at the lower end of culpability within harm category 3 and did not exhibit features of significant role as per the sentencing guideline.
• Too much emphasis was placed on the Appellant's antecedents, which did not include similar offending.
• The mitigating factor of the Appellant being a new mother was insufficiently considered in sentencing.
• The absence of a pre-sentence report was noted, referencing the court’s decision in R v Petherick.
• Disparity was highlighted between the Appellant's sentence and that of her co-defendant, who received a higher sentence despite arguably less mitigation.

Co-defendant's Context (as presented by Appellant's counsel)

• The co-defendant operated under instructions from the Appellant's former partner, did not manage the operation, and had a different role involving sending messages, supplying drugs, and collecting money.
• The co-defendant's sentence was 40 months' imprisonment, two months more than the Appellant's, despite less mitigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214; [2013] 1 WLR 1102	Guidance on sentencing where custodial sentences interfere with family life, particularly regarding the impact on children and the proportionality of the sentence.	The court applied the principles to assess the significance of the Appellant's status as a new mother and the impact of custody on her infant, emphasizing the need for proportionality and consideration of family effects in sentencing.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found that the Appellant's role was not unequivocally lesser; she and the co-defendant ran the operation for over two months, had possession of multiple phones, and held a substantial quantity of drugs ready for supply. This demonstrated characteristics of a significant role. However, the court determined that the Recorder erred in assessing culpability, as the prosecution-accepted facts showed that the Appellant was acting under duress and performed a limited agency role without management functions or significant financial benefit.

The court emphasized that the lesser role features predominated, and the Appellant had no influence over the threatening third party. The court rejected the notion that the Appellant expected significant financial advantage, noting no admission or proof of possession of cash proceeds.

The court agreed with the Recorder that some uplift from the starting point for category 3 lesser role was justified but found the Recorder's sentence of 54 months (pre-plea reduction) excessive and unjustified. It held that the previous convictions for violence should not be treated as a significant aggravating factor in this case. The mitigating factors, including the impact on the Appellant's infant child and their relationship, were substantial and insufficiently weighted by the Recorder.

The court lamented the absence of a pre-sentence report, particularly for a defendant recently given birth, noting the importance of such a report to inform sentencing regarding family impact. Although the Appellant was in a mother and baby unit during custody, this was not equivalent to parenting outside prison.

Balancing the seriousness of Class A drug offences against the societal value placed on family relationships and the rights of the child, the court found the original sentence disproportionate. It concluded that immediate custody was unavoidable but that the sentence should be significantly lower.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL and quashed the original sentence of 38 months' imprisonment on the lead counts, substituting concurrent terms of 30 months' imprisonment. The sentences for simple possession counts remained unchanged.

The decision directly affects the Appellant by reducing the custodial sentence to reflect a more accurate assessment of culpability and mitigating factors, particularly the impact on her infant child. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles concerning sentencing and family impact.