Quarry, R. v

A sentencing judge may consider an offender’s proven role within a drug-supply operation as relevant background to offences of supply. Where the offender disputes that role, findings made after a Newton hearing may properly inform sentence if supported by the evidence.

An appellate court will not interfere merely because the sentence is severe. A deterrent sentence for repeated commercial supply of Class A drugs will stand where it is justified by the offender’s role and is not manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Cambridge to three counts of supplying crack cocaine and two counts of supplying heroin. He received concurrent sentences of six years and six months’ imprisonment.

The prosecution disputed his basis of plea, which denied that he controlled the telephone used to arrange supplies and that he had a responsible role in the local operation. Following a Newton hearing, the sentencing judge found that he arranged transactions and deliveries as the local dealer trusted by the wider organisation.

He appealed against sentence, principally challenging the evidential basis for those findings and, without substantial pursuit, the credit allowed for his plea and lack of relevant previous convictions.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to find, following the Newton hearing, that the appellant had answered calls to the drugs telephone, arranged transactions and deliveries, and acted as the local dealer in charge of the Cambridge operation.

2. The undercover officer’s evidence was sufficient to support those findings. The repeated telephone contacts, the consistency of the voice identification, and the appellant’s personal involvement in the three supplies provided ample evidence. The court did not need to rely on evidence of earlier deliveries to reach that conclusion.

3. The appellant’s role was relevant background to the supply offences to which he had pleaded guilty. It was therefore proper for the judge to take that role into account in sentence. The appellant had not contended that the disputed matters lay outside the scope of the offences or were irrelevant to sentence.

4. The judge was also entitled to allow less than full credit for the guilty plea. The prosecution case was almost incontestable and the appellant had unsuccessfully contested the extent of his role.

5. Although the concurrent sentences of six years and six months were severe, the need for deterrence and the appellant’s operational responsibility justified them. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed.
• Crown Court at Cambridge: Following guilty pleas to five Class A drug-supply offences, the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of six years and six months’ imprisonment after a Newton hearing.