[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 >> JJ, R. v [2017] EWCA Crim 299 (08 March 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2017/299.html Cite as: [2017] 2 Cr App R (S) 8, [2017] EWCA Crim 299

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		8 March 2017

LORD JUSTICE TREACY:

1. This is an appeal against a total sentence of 7 years' detention in a young offender institution, imposed on 11th October 2016 in the Crown Court at Manchester. The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts on two separate indictments. On the first indictment he pleaded guilty to counts 4 and 5, offences of being concerned in the making of an offer to supply cocaine. Those offences were committed when he was aged 17. He received concurrent terms of 3 years' detention in a young offender institution for those matters.
2. The second indictment involved offences committed on bail when the offender was aged 18. Count 2 alleged possession of ecstasy with intent to supply. For that offence a sentence of 4 years' detention in a young offender institution was imposed. Count 3 involved possession of cannabis with intent to supply for which a concurrent 8 month period was imposed.
3. The first pair of offences was committed in August 2014. Police officers went to the home address of this appellant and his family. A very large quantity of amphetamine was found resulting in charges being brought against the appellant's mother. In due course she was acquitted. But those proceedings significantly delayed proceedings based on evidence uncovered against this appellant during the same police search.
4. The police searched the appellant's bedroom and found two mobile phones. One held a number of text messages, suggestive of involvement in the purchase and supply of illegal drugs. The second phone contained messages showing that the appellant was purchasing cocaine in significant quantities at the end of August 2014 with a view to offer for sale. There are also texts about the purchase of the cutting agent benzocaine.
5. Count 4 involved the appellant arranging to buy half an ounce of cocaine for £750 and then texting a series of numbers offering high purity cocaine. Count 5 involved texts showing an agreement being reached with a third party for the supply of high purity cocaine, in which the appellant appears to have involved his sister, a woman 5 years older than him. The police also found electronic scales bearing traces of cocaine and a list on a note pad of debtors in relation both to cocaine and cannabis.
6. The note pad bore the appellant's fingerprints and the contents of the list tie in with text messages found on one of the phones. After the appellant's arrest he made no comment and was released on bail.
7. Thus it was that whilst still on bail awaiting proceedings before the Crown Court for the original matters this appellant was committed the further offences. On 30th April 2016 police stopped a car which had been driven erratically. The front seat passenger ran off discarding a trail of packages containing cannabis. The total of 57 grams of cannabis worth about £600 was recovered from that source, including some cannabis found at the passenger's home. The appellant had been a rear seat passenger in that car and police went to search his house. In his bedroom about 800 grams of cannabis was found in a large plastic bucket. Also within that bucket were found more than 2000 ecstasy tablets and a set of scales. The street value of the cannabis was about £8,500, the street value of the ecstasy was about £6,000.
8. In relation to ecstasy the appellant submitted a basis of plea. After some initial objection by the Crown agreement was reached by the time of the sentencing hearing. The Crown accepted that the appellant was not playing a leading role, and that others more criminally sophisticated were directing him as to what to do with the drugs. The drugs had been at his house for 3 week and he was acting as a custodian or functionary who would deliver the drugs in whole or part when requested to.
9. It was not disputed that the appellant was in debt as a result of his dealing in cannabis. Nor was it disputed that that debt was being reduced at the rate of £200 per week, for the appellant's services in storing and being ready to deliver the drugs as directed. It was on that basis that the matter was dealt with.
10. The appellant was aged 19 when sentenced. As already noted he was 17 and then 18 when the two sets of offences were committed.
11. In addition to the matters before the court, we note that he was convicted in 2015 for possession of cannabis and given a conditional discharge. Later in 2015 he was cautioned for criminal damage. There were character references before the court. Shortly before the hearing we received an e-mail from the appellant himself.
12. A pre-sentence report refers to the appellant's heavy cannabis use, starting at the age of 15. There is a prison report which reflects well upon the appellant. He has shown a good level of motivation and engaged with the custody process. He has been willing to undertake work to address his offending behaviour.
13. The grounds of appeal urge that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly having regard to the appellant's age, his previous good character and the principle of totality. In giving leave the single judge commented on the length of the first custodial sentence, and the delay in dealing with the matter which had not been the appellant's fault. Reliance has been placed on those matters today.
14. The relevant drugs guideline for the 2014 offences would put this case in a significant role on the basis of street dealing in the cocaine. In the case of an adult that would give a starting point of 4.5 years, with a range of 3.5 to 7 years. The offences were committed when this applicant was aged 17 and for that reason would attract a reduction as indicated in the Sentencing Guidelines Council's Guideline relating to the sentencing of young offenders. In addition we accept that there should be some recognition of the delay which occurred in dealing with this matter. There is no challenge to the sentencing judge's assessment of 25% credit due for a guilty plea.
15. As far as the ecstasy offence is concerned, the case would fall into category 2, with the appellant's role being assessed as "significant". The guideline shows a starting point of 8 years with a range of 6.5 to 10 years. There can be no dispute about the passing of a consecutive sentence, given than the offending was on bail. The associated cannabis supply offence is also a relevant consideration. The judge's approach was to take a starting point of about 6 years, that is below the category range and in doing so the judge said he was taking account of totality. The judge then granted full credit for an early guilty plea which reduced the sentence in relation to the second episode to the term of 4 years.
16. We return to the first set of offences. If the starting point of 4.5 years for an adult is taken, a reduction to reflect this offender's age would bring the appropriate sentence down to 3.5 years. Making some allowance for the delay and the appellant's lack of criminal convictions at that stage, a sentence of 3 years appears appropriate before giving 25% credit for guilty plea. The resultant sentence therefore is a little over 2 years.
17. We consider that the sentence of 3 years imposed below for the first set of offences was too long on that analysis, principally because it did not pay sufficient regard to the appellant's age at the time of the commission of the offences, allied with the other factors we have alluded to.
18. We have also been impressed by submissions made this afternoon by Mr Blackshaw about some of the background to this earlier offending. It is clear from the information provided that whilst still in his mid-teens and prior to this offending, this appellant had grown up in a household where significant drug dealing was an accepted part of life, if not a way of life. Reference has been made to a sentence passed on the appellant's father not long before he was arrested for these matters.
19. We consider that in examining the case of someone who was under 18 at the time when the initial offences were committed that that sort of background is a relevant factor for the court to consider and in our judgment it has the effect of reducing his culpability to some degree.
20. The sentence of 4 years passed for the second set of offences which involved ecstasy was not, in our judgment, of itself too long, but it is of course necessary to have regard to totality and also the fact that an overall sentence in the region of 6 years would be a substantial sentence for an offender, even now aged 19, serving a first custodial term. Although the judge undoubtedly factored in totality when arriving at a figure for the second set of offences, we consider that the overall picture requires some additional allowance.
21. It follows therefore from that analysis that the overall term of 7 years imposed below was, in our judgment, too long. In the circumstances described and bearing in mind the factors we have alluded to, we think that a reduction to a term of 5 years' detention in a young offender institution is the appropriate overall sentence. We achieve that result by quashing the sentences on counts 4 and 5 of the initial indictment (0541) and by substituting concurrent terms of 12 months' detention in a young offender institution on those counts. We leave in place the consecutive term of 4 years which was imposed on the second indictment relating to the Ecstasy. To that extent this appeal is allowed.