[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 >> Cooper & Anor, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 541 (06 March 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/541.html Cite as: [2007] EWCA Crim 541

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		6th March 2007

1. MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: These are appeals against sentence by David Cooper, a man aged 39, and John Louvel, a man aged 40. On 26th July 2006, at Plymouth Crown Court, Cooper pleaded guilty to counts 2, 5, 8, 14, 16, 17 and 18, and Louvel pleaded guilty to counts 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 19 of the indictments they faced. They were both, however, convicted on 29th November 2006 on counts 1, 7, 10 and 13, which charged possession of Class B and C drugs with intent to supply. They were sentenced as follows. Cooper, on counts 1 and 7, possession of amphetamine, a Class B drug, with intent to supply, in each case three years' imprisonment concurrent. On count 5, a charge of possession of MDMA, a Class A drug, no separate penalty was imposed as far as that was concerned. On Count 10, possession of diazepam, a Class C drug, with intent to supply, two years' imprisonment concurrent. On count 13, possession of a Class C drug, ketamine, with intent to supply, two years' imprisonment concurrent. No separate penalty was imposed on counts 17 and 18, which charged possession of a Class C drug, namely cannabis. There was a return to custody in respect of the offence having been committed before the expiry of an earlier term, with an order that six months be served of the remaining period of 15 months ten days, that order being made under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, and to be served before the sentence for the instant offence. Thus the total sentence for each of them was of three years' imprisonment. In the case of Cooper, that was consecutive to the six month period to which we have already referred. Louvel's sentences were similar in respect of similar drugs under counts 1, 7, 6, 10, 13 and 19 of the indictment.
2. The convictions arose of the appellants having been stopped in a car in January 2006 at 1.55 pm in the afternoon. Louvel and Cooper were respectively driver and rear seat passenger. Cooper tried to alight from the car and was stopped by the police. He appeared to have some problems: his speech was slurred, his eyes were half-closed and he was unsteady on his feet. He was searched and found to be in possession of 10.8 grams of amphetamine powder (which formed the basis of counts 1 and 2), three MDMA tablets (count 5) and 23 ketamine tablets (counts 13 and 14). The car was searched and a small plastic box was found close to the handbrake. It contained 35 diazepam tablets (which formed the subject of counts 10, 11 and 12), six MDMA tablets, and there were 3.3 grams of 6 per cent amphetamine (counts 7 and 9). There were 0.61 grams of 11 per cent amphetamine (counts 1 and 3) and 4.5 grams of cannabis (count 19) and 86 and a half ketamine tablets (counts 13 and 15). A bag containing 30 diazepam tablets was found in the road.
3. Cooper's home was searched, and from his home officers recovered some herbal cannabis (count 18), some cannabis resin (count 17), some 6 per cent amphetamine and 0.703 grams of 5 per cent amphetamine, which formed the basis of other counts. Two bottles of diazepam tablets, one with tablets in it, and a bag containing 10 diazepam tablets were found in the bedroom. Bottles with prescriptions were in his own name. A quantity of grip seal bags was also recovered. Louvel's home was searched and two grip seal bags were recovered.
4. There were similarities between the drugs found in the possession of Cooper and those in the possession of Louvel.
5. On interview, the defendants said that the drugs were for their own use, and indeed they pleaded guilty to simple possession, but the jury found that they had possession with intent to supply. However, the quantities were quite small, and it was accepted by the judge, when sentencing them, that their dealing was at the lower end of the scale. However, the sentence was a very substantial sentence, which, in the judgment of the court, was excessive for a small time, small amount dealer who, as in the case of these defendants, was dealing primarily, if not solely, for the purpose of feeding his own addiction in each case.
6. It is put to us that the appropriate range, having regard to the facts that both of them have many convictions for possession of drugs, although in neither case any significant or recent conviction for possession with intent to supply, began at around 12 months' imprisonment.
7. In our judgment, having regard to their record, that would have been an insufficient penalty. In our judgment, the appropriate penalty in each case was one of 18 months. In those circumstances, the sentence imposed by the judge for the offences of which they were found guilty in each case will be reduced from three years to 18 months, all to run concurrently. We make no order in respect of the six months which Cooper was ordered to serve of the sentence on which he had been released. The sentences of two years, equally, will be reduced to 18 months to run concurrently, so that in each case the total sentence in respect of each of the counts of which they were convicted will be one of 18 months' imprisonment concurrent.
9. LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Beal, as far as the unexpired portion of the sentence, that would still be served in advance. When my Lord said, we make no order, we are not interfering with the order below.
10. MR BEAL: I understand. Would you impose no separate penalty on those matters, which were ordered to lie on the file.
11. MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: Quite.
12. LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Thank you very much.