Summary of Court of Appeal Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty on re‑arraignment to one offence of possessing a Class B controlled drug (cannabis) with intent to supply. The Appellant was sentenced on 16 September 2025 by Judge Richards to 12 months' detention in a young offender institution, to run consecutively to a 19‑year detention sentence then being served for attempted murder and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. The Appellant appeals that sentence with leave.

Factual basis: during a trial at the Crown Court at The City, on 8 February 2024 a package containing approximately 388 grams of cannabis resin was discovered falling from court papers belonging to the Co‑defendant as he was searched for return to custody. The Appellant's fingerprints were subsequently found on the packaging. In interview the Appellant gave a prepared statement that he had been pressured and threatened into taking the drugs into court and placing them in the dock; the prosecution accepted that account for sentencing purposes. The Appellant was 17 at the date of the offence and 19 at sentence. The Appellant has prior convictions, including the 19‑year sentence referred to above.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in departing from the sentencing guideline by adopting a four‑year starting point (a leading role starting point) rather than the guideline starting point for a lesser role without justification.
2. Whether the judge erred in ordering the sentence to run consecutively to the existing custodial sentence without giving appropriate reduction for totality.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred by taking a 4‑year starting point well above the appropriate starting point (a high‑level community order for a lesser role under category 3) without justification in the interests of justice.
• The judge erred in imposing a consecutive sentence and failing to consider a reduction to reflect totality, arguing that if sentenced together the consecutive element would likely have been shorter.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The offence properly falls within category 3 harm because it involved supply of drugs in a custodial context; culpability was between significant and lesser. A category 3 significant role starting point is 1 year; a category 3 lesser role starting point is a high‑level community order.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court agreed the offence falls within category 3 harm because it concerned supply in a custodial context. The Court accepted that the Appellant had been subject to pressure and ought to have been sentenced on the basis of a lesser role for culpability.

The judge's decision to make an additional upward adjustment to a four‑year starting point for supplying into prison was held to be double counting, contrary to R v O'Reilly, because the prison context had already been reflected in the category 3 harm assessment. However, the Court identified a distinct and separate aggravating feature: the offence was committed in a court building, in the dock during criminal proceedings, which demonstrates particular contempt for the rule of law (R v Arshad) and justified raising seriousness beyond the category range.

Balancing those features, the Court found the judge's 4‑year starting point (the guideline starting point for a leading role) manifestly excessive. The Court determined an appropriate notional starting point was 30 weeks before plea. Applying a 20% reduction for the guilty plea produced 24 weeks, and allowing for the Appellant's youth (17 at offence; 19 at sentence) reduced the term to 16 weeks' detention in a young offender institution.

On concurrency/totality, the Court concluded the drug offence arose out of facts unrelated to the offences at Snaresbrook; the judge was therefore entitled to impose a consecutive sentence with little reduction for totality, and the imposition of a consecutive sentence was appropriate in the circumstances.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART

Disposition: The 12‑month sentence imposed by Judge Richards is quashed and substituted with a sentence of 16 weeks' detention in a young offender institution to be served consecutively to the 19‑year sentence for attempted murder.

Implications: The direct effect is substitution of the shorter consecutive term. The Court applied existing authorities (R v O'Reilly; R v Arshad) to correct double counting and to treat offending in a court building as a distinct aggravating feature; no broader change in sentencing law was announced beyond the application in this case.