Attorney General's Reference No 152 of 2004

A person who stores Class A drugs for a supplier performs an important function in the distribution chain. Immediate custody will almost always follow, even where the person has good character and a limited role.

Early guilty pleas, frank admissions and a role undertaken solely to obtain drugs for a serious addiction may justify a substantial reduction in sentence. They do not ordinarily justify avoiding custody. Where a deferred sentence has indicated that custody may be avoided, the resulting double jeopardy may substantially mitigate the custodial term on an Attorney General’s reference.

The offender pleaded guilty at Northampton Magistrates’ Court to possession of cocaine with intent to supply and supplying cocaine. He had stored about 254 grams of cocaine for a local dealer and was paid in cocaine to support his serious addiction.

He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. The Recorder deferred sentence under section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, principally to give him an opportunity to demonstrate that he could remain drug-free.

The Attorney General sought leave to refer the deferred sentence as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the offender’s mitigation could justify the absence of an immediate custodial sentence for Class A drug warehousing.

1. The Attorney General was granted leave to refer the sentence, and the reference succeeded. The deferred sentence was unduly lenient. It was replaced with two years’ imprisonment.

2. Drug warehousing is an important role in the supply chain. A warehouseman enables distribution while helping those higher in the chain to avoid detection. The court therefore reiterated that this form of involvement in Class A drug supply almost inevitably requires immediate imprisonment. Good character will usually carry limited weight because it may itself make a warehouseman useful to the suppliers.

3. The court nevertheless had to assess the individual circumstances. The offender was entitled to the maximum credit for his early guilty pleas. His later admissions were frank and comprehensive. The accepted basis of plea also established that his only reward was cocaine for his addiction, rather than financial profit. Those matters could reduce, but could not remove, the inevitable custodial sentence.

4. Absent the deferred-sentence order, a term of three to four years’ imprisonment would have been justified. The prior indication that custody would not be imposed engaged the double-jeopardy consideration on an Attorney General’s reference. It significantly reduced the proper term, but did not permit custody to be avoided. The court regarded two years’ imprisonment as the minimum appropriate sentence.

5. The offender was ordered to make himself available at Northampton Police Station by noon on the following day.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted the Attorney General leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient and substituted two years’ imprisonment for the deferred sentence: [2005] EWCA Crim 456.

• Crown Court: on 19 November 2004, the Recorder deferred sentence until 25 February 2005 under section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

• Northampton Magistrates’ Court: on 20 October 2004, the offender pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.