[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Atherton, R. v [2001] EWCA Crim 2109 (09 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2001/2109.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Crim 2109

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		9th October 2001

1. THE VICE PRESIDENT: On 26th April 2001 at Cardiff Crown Court, this appellant pleaded guilty, on re-arraignment, and on 4th May he was sentenced by Jackson J to 6 years' imprisonment for manslaughter. Nine counts of administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life, 13 counts of supplying heroin and a further count of manslaughter were left on the file on the usual terms. He appeals against sentence by leave of the Single Judge.
2. The appellant lived in a hostel for the homeless in Newport. He was a heroin addict. He was known for supplying heroin to other residents, and he had previously been present when another resident died as a result of injecting heroin after drinking considerable amounts of alcohol and another had almost died in similar circumstances.
3. The case was opened on the basis that those matters put into context the facts giving rise to the count of manslaughter to which the appellant pleaded guilty.
4. The deceased had been a resident at the same hostel since August 2000. He was a 33 year old alcoholic who also used heroin. On the afternoon of 26th August, the appellant and three other residents were in the appellant's room, taking heroin, with the door locked. Several times Rooney knocked at the door, asking for the appellant, but was told to go away. His speech was slurred, indicating that he had been drinking.
5. The appellant told those who were with him of a plan that he had to deprive Rooney of his medication for addiction in return for a bag of heroin. Later that day the appellant obtained such a bag and injected both himself and Rooney with heroin. Almost immediately Rooney fell unconscious and the appellant and another man who was there carried him to the bathroom where they left him. The appellant left the hostel, but returned later that evening and purported to find Rooney in the bathroom. He then shouted for help. The emergency services were summoned, but Rooney was dead.
6. The next day the appellant told a friend that he had injected Rooney with heroin and had cleaned the syringe and placed it in Rooney's hand.
7. The cause of death was multiple drug toxicity, including heroin, alcohol, and hydro codeine which was the drug Rooney had been prescribed for his addiction. The appellant was arrested and interviewed on 27th August. He denied knowledge of how Rooney had died.
8. In passing sentence the judge referred to the authority of Attorney General's Reference No 5 of 1995 (1996) 1 Cr App R(S) 85, as establishing that a sentence of the order of 5 years would generally be appropriate for manslaughter in these circumstances. The judge went on to refer to the fact that there had been some 12 deaths in the Newport and Gwent area as a result of heroin injection in the previous 12 months. He concluded that a sentence somewhat longer than 5 years was appropriate for that reason, namely of the increasing problem in South Wales of heroin-related deaths.
9. Mr Quinlan submits to this Court that the sentence passed by the learned judge was excessive, having regard to the plea of guilty. He drew the Court's attention to R v Davison, an unreported decision of this Court, the Court of Appeal transcript being dated 22nd March 2001, where, in paragraph 13 of the judgment, there was a reference to Johnson, and the level of 5 years as being appropriate. It is to be noted that Davison was convicted following a trial.
10. Mr Quinlan also invited the Court's attention to R v Edwards, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) transcript (28th April 1998), where the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, on the last page of the transcript, referred to it being a matter of universal knowledge that drugs of this kind are inherently dangerous and as to the need in sentencing for a measure of deterrence. In that case, a sentence of 5 years for manslaughter, following a trial, was not interfered with.
11. Mr Quinlan accepts that, in the present case, the plea of guilty was late, so that it would not have been appropriate for the sentencing judge to give the full discount which might otherwise have been available for an early plea of guilty. He also accepts that the features in the locality where the judge passed sentence, calling for a particular deterrent element, were properly relevant to the sentencing process. But, he submits, there is evidence of remorse on the part of this appellant and, following the plea of guilty, the sentence of 6 years was somewhat too high.
12. Not without a degree of hesitation, we conclude that Mr Quinlan's submission is well founded. The learned judge, as we have indicated, was entitled to take into account the factors prevailing in relation to this kind of offence, in South Wales. But, in our judgment, a sentence of 6 years, following a plea of guilty, can properly be characterised as manifestly excessive. Accordingly, it is a sentence which we quash and we substitute for it a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment. To that extent this appeal is allowed.