Branton-Speak, R. v

Social supply of cocaine, although non-commercial and confined to a private gathering, remains serious because obtaining drugs for others sustains their unlawful distribution. An immediate custodial sentence may therefore be unavoidable.

Loss of employment, income, housing or social position following imprisonment is ordinarily a foreseeable consequence of serious offending. High earning capacity or senior professional status does not make those consequences exceptional mitigation. Sentencing mercy may nevertheless justify a limited reduction where the whole personal and offending context warrants it.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Southwark to possession of cocaine with intent to supply and to four offences of possessing Class C drugs. His accepted basis of plea was that any supply of cocaine would have been social, at a one-off private flat-warming party, without financial gain or corruption of others.

He had bought 6.13 grams of cocaine and arranged to make it available to guests. The sentencing judge imposed 18 months’ imprisonment for the cocaine offence, with concurrent one-month sentences for the Class C drug offences.

On appeal, the appellant accepted that immediate custody was proper but contended that 18 months was manifestly excessive, relying principally on the non-commercial basis of supply and the grave consequences for his career, income and home.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for possession of cocaine with intent to supply was quashed and replaced with 12 months’ imprisonment. The concurrent sentences on the Class C drug offences remained concurrent.

2. The court held that immediate custody was not merely correct in principle but unavoidable. Although the intended supply was social and non-commercial, the appellant had initiated the drugs party, purchased the cocaine from a dealer, organised its availability to guests and bore the greatest responsibility for the planned supply.

3. Supplying cocaine in this setting was not trivial. By purchasing drugs for others, the appellant helped fund and sustain the prohibited distribution of cocaine. The absence of profit did not remove the seriousness of that conduct.

4. The appellant’s loss of a senior and well-paid job, future earning capacity and possibly his home did not make him a victim of the offending. Those were foreseeable consequences of imprisonment for serious offending and were not materially exceptional merely because his previous position and income had been high.

5. Having nevertheless considered the entire context, including the accepted basis of plea and the severe personal consequences, the court concluded that a limited exercise of mercy was justified. Justice required a reduction, but not one sufficient to secure immediate or near-immediate release.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the sentence appeal in part and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment for the 18-month sentence.

• Crown Court at Southwark: on 15 March 2006, imposed 18 months’ imprisonment for possession of cocaine with intent to supply, with concurrent one-month sentences for four Class C drug-possession offences.