Davies & Ors, R v

The reduced sentencing approach for low-level Class A drug supply applies only to a narrow class of offender: an out-of-work addict who supplies solely to fund addiction, holds no stock, makes only a few retail supplies to undercover officers, and is facing a first supply offence. A prompt guilty plea by an offender with no criminal record will ordinarily attract a sentence of about two to two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. A significant record removes the mitigation of good character and may justify a higher term.

The approach does not alter the general sentencing level for other retail Class A suppliers. Prior drug-supply convictions will ordinarily exclude an offender from the narrow category.

Ten defendants, sentenced at Cardiff Crown Court following an undercover operation involving heroin supply in Pontypridd, challenged sentences ranging from three-and-a-half to five years’ imprisonment. The sentencing hearings occurred shortly before the Court of Appeal gave guidance in R v Afonso & Ors [2004] EWCA Crim 2342.

The appeals required the court to decide which offenders fell within the limited Afonso category of addict suppliers and how criminal records affected the resulting sentence. It also considered whether the sentences of appellants outside that category were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Eight sentence appeals were allowed. The court granted the necessary extensions of time and leave where required. It quashed and reduced the sentences of Davies, Hall, Picton, Evans, Edwards, Gulliford, Gething and Forward.

2. The court applied R v Afonso & Ors [2004] EWCA Crim 2342. Its reduced sentencing approach was confined to out-of-work heroin addicts whose sole motive was funding their addiction, who held no stock, and who made only a few retail supplies to undercover officers. The central question was whether each offender fell within that narrow group.

3. The indication of two to two-and-a-half years after a timely guilty plea was intended for an offender with no criminal record. A significant record, even without previous drug convictions, removed the mitigation of good character. It therefore justified higher substituted terms for Hall, Evans and Forward.

4. The court reduced the sentences to two-and-a-half years for Davies, Picton and Edwards; to three-and-a-half years for Hall and Evans; to two years for Gulliford and Gething; and to three years for Forward. Edwards’ circumstances disclosed no material distinction from Decino, whose comparable sentence had already been reduced.

5. Bevan and Dean Jones were outside the Afonso category because of prior Class A supply convictions. For suppliers outside that category, the general tariff identified in R v Dhajit [1999] 2 Cr App R(S) 142 and R v Twisse [2001] 2 Cr App R(S) 37 remained applicable. Bevan’s appeal was dismissed, and Jones’s application for leave to appeal was refused.

6. The court added that the reduction in R v Doggett & Owens [2004] EWCA Crim 3527 did not affect cases involving previous Class A supply convictions or the general relevance of previous convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2005] EWCA Crim 2437, reduced eight sentences after applying and clarifying the limited guidance in R v Afonso & Ors [2004] EWCA Crim 2342. It dismissed Bevan’s appeal and refused Dean Jones leave to appeal.
• Cardiff Crown Court — on 2 or 23 August 2004, Judge Durham Hall QC imposed sentences of imprisonment between three-and-a-half and five years for offences involving heroin supply.