Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant appealed with leave against a 46-month custodial sentence imposed for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply, possession of Class B drugs, and possession of criminal property. [1][2][3][4]
Police observations, searches and a mobile-phone examination provided evidence of drug dealing, including approximately 214 grams of crack cocaine, 11.5 grams of cocaine, cannabis, cash, scales and messages indicative of drug supply. [5][6][7][8][9]
The Appellant pleaded guilty. The sentencing judge categorised the offending as a significant-role Category 3 case, imposed a starting point of four years six months, reduced the sentence by 15 per cent for the guilty plea, and imposed a concurrent six-month sentence for possession of cash. [9][10]
The Court of Appeal considered the appeal on the basis of the sentencing remarks and a prison report, without obtaining a pre-sentence report. [11][12]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge wrongly failed to give credit for steps taken by the Appellant to address his offending behaviour. [13][14]
- Whether the sentencing judge wrongly failed to reduce the sentence to reflect the Appellant’s alleged drug addiction and attempts to address it. [13][15]
- Whether the starting point was excessive and should have been three and a half years. [16]
- Whether the resulting sentence of 46 months was manifestly excessive. [17]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The sentencing judge had disregarded significant steps taken to address the Appellant’s offending behaviour, contrary to the sentencing guideline and established legal principle. [13][14]
- The Appellant should have received mitigation for his drug addiction and efforts to tackle it. [15]
- The starting point should have been three and a half years rather than the figure adopted by the sentencing judge. [16]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Mahon [2017] EWCA Crim 102 |
The relevance of linking offending behaviour to alcohol or drug abuse when assessing mitigation. |
The Court distinguished the case because the offending there, involving burglary, was linked to alcohol and drug abuse, whereas the evidence here did not establish that the Appellant’s drug operation was driven by addiction. [18] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The applicable sentencing guideline identifies determination or demonstrated steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour as a possible mitigating factor. Its examples concern offending closely associated with substance abuse, such as theft to fund a habit or disorder committed while intoxicated. [19][20]
The Court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that this mitigation was unavailable. The Appellant had operated a drug-supply business, supplied crack cocaine to apparently vulnerable users, and earned substantial sums; there was no evidence before the sentencing judge that he was addicted to crack cocaine. [18]
The prison report was positive about the Appellant’s conduct in custody and recorded his claimed use of crack cocaine and heroin during the offending period. However, although it indicated willingness to address substance misuse, it also suggested that he may have minimised his involvement and that the offending was financially motivated. Read as a whole, the report did not show that addiction had driven the offending. [21]
The Court further considered the management role in the operation, the drugs and cash found at the Appellant’s address, and his previous conviction for similar conduct. Although that conviction was old, the Court regarded the Appellant’s mitigation as limited. [17]
In those circumstances, the Court was not persuaded that the 46-month sentence was manifestly excessive. [17]
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Court upheld the 46-month custodial sentence. [22]
The decision left the sentence and its direct effect on the Appellant unchanged. The Court commended the Appellant’s conduct in custody, but found that it did not justify a reduction. No new precedent was set. [22]