Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application for leave to appeal against sentence by the Appellant, aged 19. The Appellant pleaded guilty on 26 April 2024 in the Crown Court at The City before Judge Townsend to two offences of being concerned in the supply of a Class A controlled drug, contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On 21 November 2024, the Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 30 months' detention in a young offender institution for each offence.
The Appellant was already subject to a Suspended Sentence Order imposed on 2 April 2024 for offences including dangerous driving, possession of a Class A drug, and possession of a bladed article. That suspended sentence was not activated, but the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement Condition was removed, while a Mental Health Treatment Condition remained. The Appellant had served 236 days under Qualifying Curfew, credited as 118 days towards the Crown Court sentence.
On 8 January 2025, the prosecution notified the court of an error in the sentencing process regarding an overstatement of the quantity of drugs involved. An application to correct the error under section 385 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and CPR 28.4 was made, but the sentencing judge was unavailable, preventing correction within the statutory timeframe. The Appellant’s application for leave to appeal was made 40 days late but was granted with an extension of time.
Regarding the offences, during a police investigation into Class A drug supply, the Appellant was found to be involved in preparing drug deals ("bagging up") involving crack cocaine and heroin. The indictment covered a two-month period, with evidence of nearly 1,000 street deals prepared and a request for 3,000 Rizla papers shortly before arrest. The Appellant refused to answer police interview questions and had five prior convictions including two for possession of Class A drugs. The offences occurred while the Appellant was on bail for the offences leading to the suspended sentence.
At sentencing, the court found the Appellant had a "lesser role" in the offences, within category 2 of the Drugs Guideline, with harm initially assessed as equivalent to one kilogram of drugs, leading to a starting point of five years' custody. Mitigating factors included age and mental health difficulties. The final sentence was 30 months’ detention after adjustments and discount for the guilty plea.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing error regarding the quantity of drugs involved justified quashing the original sentence.
- What the appropriate sentence should be following correction of the drug quantity and reassessment of harm and culpability.
- Whether the Appellant’s role and the quantity of drugs involved corresponded to a lesser role and Category 3 harm rather than Category 2.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Appellant should be sentenced on the basis of a "lesser role" within Category 3 harm, reflecting a corrected drug quantity of approximately 99.69 grams rather than one kilogram.
- This correction reduces the harm category and starting point for sentence to three years' custody, with a range of two to four-and-a-half years.
- The starting point should be increased to four years' custody, reduced to three years for mitigation, and then further reduced for the guilty plea.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Respondent accepts the error in the calculation of drug quantity and efforts were made to correct it promptly.
- Harm caused is not confined to the calculation of 100 grams but includes evidence from an expert report indicating drug quantities discussed during the indictment period amounting to approximately 750 grams.
- Sentencing should be based on harm relating to at least 750 grams of Class A drugs, a position agreed to by the Appellant’s counsel during oral submissions.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court acknowledged that the original sentence was based on an erroneous assessment of harm due to an incorrect calculation of the drug quantity. The error concerned the weight of drug "wraps," not the entirety of the prosecution’s evidence, which established involvement with drugs in the order of 750 grams. The court accepted the Appellant’s lesser role but found the harm category fell within Category 3, towards its upper end.
The court considered aggravating factors including the Appellant’s bail status during offending, the presence of two different Class A drugs, and the duration of offending over two months. Mitigating factors included the Appellant’s youth and mental health difficulties requiring treatment.
Balancing these factors, the court uplifted the starting point to four years, reduced it to three years for mitigation, and further reduced for the guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of 27 months’ custody concurrent on each count. The Suspended Sentence Order remained undisturbed, with the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement removed as previously ordered.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED the appeal against sentence and quashed the original 30-month sentence. The Appellant’s sentence was recalculated and reduced to 27 months’ detention in a young offender institution, concurrent on each offence, with credit given for time served under Qualifying Curfew.
The Suspended Sentence Order imposed in April 2024 was not activated and remains undisturbed except for removal of the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement. No new legal precedent was established; the decision directly affects the Appellant’s sentencing by correcting the error in harm assessment and adjusting the sentence accordingly.