Summary of Anonymized Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a renewed application for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by a single judge. The Applicant was sentenced on 13 December 2023 at the Crown Court at The City by Judge Sampson to a total of 6 years' imprisonment for offences of being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs of Class A (diamorphine, cocaine and MDMA), Class B (cannabis and ketamine) and Class C (diazepam). The Applicant had pleaded guilty on 3 February 2023 but on a basis that the prosecution said was unacceptable.

Following the plea, a Newton hearing was held before Judge Sampson at which the Applicant gave extended evidence. The judge partially rejected the Applicant's basis of plea and partially rejected the prosecution's basis; he allowed 25% credit for the guilty pleas and concluded that the appropriate total sentence after trial would have been 8 years.

The Applicant did not lodge an appeal within the permitted time and, acting in person, did not file his appeal until 30 July 2024 — some seven months late. He sought an extension of time of 198 days to bring the appeal and additionally sought an extension of 19 days to renew applications previously refused by the single judge. The court found no good reason for the length of these delays but proceeded to consider the merits of the proposed appeal.

Factual background as found at the Newton hearing (as summarised by the sentencing judge and reviewed by the court) included interception of packages containing Class A drugs shipped from abroad to an address in The Town linked to Associate A. A warrant executed at that address in May 2021 uncovered quantities of cocaine, MDMA, cannabis, cash, and evidence of drug preparation, as well as mobile phones. Two contacts on one seized phone were attributed to the Applicant, which led to a search of the Applicant's home. Police found small amounts of drugs, digital scales with traces of drugs, mobile phones and a lock-knife. Examination of the Applicant's phone revealed messages discussing kilogram-level cannabis deals, chasing of money relating to a heroin deal, negotiation about purchasing a kilogram of cocaine for £43,000, discussion of cutting agents and crack production, and arrangements or ambitions to supply large quantities including references to international travel to Country A.

The messages showed apparent collaboration and mutual encouragement between the Applicant and Associate A about working together to supply large quantities of drugs across various locations in the United Kingdom (including references to the Applicant’s involvement in places such as Doncaster, Sheffield, Peterborough, Holbeach and Scotland). There was no evidence of supply by the Applicant after January 2021, no evidence directly linking the drugs seized at Associate A's address to the Applicant, and no evidence that substantial profits had in fact been made by the Applicant or Associate A. The judge at the Newton hearing found, however, that the Applicant had been involved in dealing about a kilogram of heroin and other drugs and that he had ambitions to become a significant dealer, involving others in Scotland.

Another relevant connection identified in evidence was between the Applicant and Associate B, a prolific local dealer who had been sentenced separately. The prosecution's case included that the Applicant had engaged with Associate B and organised or facilitated supply by Gambian associates in Scotland using drugs supplied by Associate B.

At sentencing the judge applied the Sentencing Council guideline groupings: the Class A counts were treated together as category 2 (significant role) with a starting point of 8 years; counts for Class B supply were in category 3 (starting point 1 year); the Class C count had a guideline starting point of 6 months. Having applied totality and taken account of mitigation (including the Applicant's personal difficulties and references indicating otherwise good character), the judge reached the after-trial figure of 8 years, reduced to 6 years by credit for plea.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an extension of time should be granted to the Applicant to apply for leave to appeal against sentence, given a 198-day delay in lodging the appeal and an additional 19-day delay to renew previously refused applications.
2. Whether there are arguable grounds to contend that the Applicant's sentence of 6 years' imprisonment (reflecting a notional 8-year sentence after trial reduced for plea) was manifestly excessive or otherwise erroneous — specifically as to categorisation under the Sentencing Council guidelines and the factual findings made at the Newton hearing.
3. Whether the absence of a formal pre-sentence report rendered the sentence unsafe, and whether a pre-sentence report is necessary in the circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that the judge should have had the benefit of a pre-sentence report because this was his first custodial sentence.
• The Applicant repeated that he had been carrying out two jobs (parcel delivery and work as a musician) and that he only socialised with and sold to a small number of people; he denied selling drugs more widely.
• The Applicant argued that he did not know that the people he was texting had been arrested for drug dealing, that he ceased contact when he rehabilitated and his mental health improved, and that his sentence was manifestly excessive in light of his account and circumstances.
• The Applicant sought to challenge the judge's factual categorisation of his offending and the resulting sentence.

Prosecution's Case

• The prosecution's case (as articulated at trial and the Newton hearing) asserted that the Applicant was involved in the supply of Class A drugs in collaboration with Associate A and Associate B, that he communicated directly with buyers in Scotland, and that he facilitated supplies including cocaine and a near-kilogram of heroin.
• The prosecution relied on intercepted packages, the results of searches, and messages on seized phones to establish the Applicant's involvement and intention to make significant financial gain from drug supply.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in two stages: first addressing the procedural request for an extension of time and then considering the substantive merits of the proposed appeal.

On the procedural point, the court observed the significant delay (198 days for the appeal plus 19 days for renewed applications) and stated that it could see no good reason for these long delays. Nonetheless, because the Applicant was acting in person and sought relief, the court considered the merits of the proposed appeal before deciding on the extension request.

Substantively, the court reviewed the factual findings made by Judge Sampson at the Newton hearing and the judge's approach to sentencing. The court noted that:

• The sentencing judge had heard a full day of evidence, received detailed material, and made findings that the Applicant was involved in dealing around a kilogram of heroin and other drugs and had ambitions to deal on a larger scale.
• The sentencing judge accepted parts of the defence basis of plea and rejected others, allowing 25% credit for the guilty pleas; this compromise was reflected in the sentence imposed.
• Although the judge did not have a formal pre-sentence report, he did have a liaison and diversion court report prepared by a qualified healthcare professional which addressed vulnerability and provided background akin to a pre-sentence report; the court concluded that a formal pre-sentence report was not necessary either at sentence or now on appeal.
• The judge applied the Sentencing Council guidelines to the facts he found: Class A offending as category 2 (significant role) with a starting point of 8 years, Class B counts as category 3 and the Class C count with a 6-month starting point; the judge also applied totality and mitigation before arriving at his final figure.

The reviewing court agreed with the single judge that there was no basis for challenging the factual findings made at the Newton hearing. The court agreed that the judge had properly identified the Applicant's ambition to be a significant dealer and his expectation of profit, while also recognising his good character as mitigation. The court concluded that the sentencing judge had applied the guidelines appropriately and that there was no arguable error in approach.

Because the court found no arguable merit in the proposed appeal on sentence, it held that there was no proper basis to extend time to bring the appeal.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The application for leave to appeal is refused and the application for an extension of time necessary to bring the appeal is also refused.

Implications:

• The direct effect is that the Applicant's attempted appeal cannot proceed: there will be no renewal of leave and no extension of time granted to pursue the appeal against sentence.
• The court found that the sentencing judge's factual findings and application of the Sentencing Council guidelines were sound; accordingly, the decision does not establish any new legal precedent or alter sentencing principles. The opinion notes that a formal pre-sentence report was not required in the circumstances because a liaison and diversion report provided comparable material, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

This summary has been prepared solely from the content of the provided opinion and has been fully anonymized according to the instructions provided.