Reardon, R. v

In a sentence appeal for multiple drug-supply offences, the court must assess both the appropriateness of the individual terms and the totality of the consecutive sentence. Relevant matters include the nature and quantity of the drugs, the circumstances and scale of supply, the offender’s record, a guilty plea, and personal mitigation. A serious record may justify substantial sentences, but it does not prevent an aggregate sentence from being excessive where the offending involves small-scale supplies and significant mitigation.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Middlesex Guildhall to supplying cannabis, diazepam, temazepam and cocaine. The first three supplies involved small quantities obtained by undercover officers. The cocaine supply involved 45 milligrams of cocaine and arose after the appellant sought £2 towards buying cocaine for himself.

On 28 January 2005, the judge imposed concurrent terms of one year for the first three counts and a consecutive term of three years for the cocaine count, producing four years’ imprisonment. A five-year anti-social behaviour order was also imposed. The appellant challenged only the custodial sentence, contending that the individual terms and the total sentence were excessive.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent of the custodial sentence. The appellant did not pursue a challenge to the anti-social behaviour order, which therefore remained in force.

2. The concurrent terms of one year for the cannabis, diazepam and temazepam supplies were high. The offences involved class C drugs in small quantities and the circumstances of supply were limited. The appellant’s very bad record and the other personal factors could properly aggravate sentence, but did not remove the need for a proportionate assessment of those counts.

3. There was less obvious criticism of the individual three-year sentence for cocaine. Nevertheless, the court had to consider the overall sentence by reference to totality. It took account of the small amount supplied, the appellant’s immediate drug-related motive, his guilty pleas, and his efforts in custody to address his long-standing drug habit. It also bore in mind the non-directly-comparable guidance in Afonso.

4. The four-year aggregate sentence was too long. The court quashed it and substituted six months’ imprisonment concurrently on each of counts 1 to 3, and two years’ imprisonment consecutively on count 4. The resulting total was two years and six months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against sentence to the limited extent of substituting a total sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Middlesex Guildhall The appellant pleaded guilty on 9 December 2004 and, on 28 January 2005, received a total sentence of four years’ imprisonment and a five-year anti-social behaviour order.