Wilson, R. v

Sentencing for manslaughter caused by supplying a dangerous Class A drug calls for an assessment of the particular criminality and mitigation, rather than a rigid tariff. The sentencing authorities showed a usual sentence of about five years after trial, subject to an appropriate reduction for a guilty plea and other personal mitigation. A higher starting point may be justified where the supplier knew, or should have known, of the particular danger, supplied a drug to an inexperienced user, or endangered more than one person. A prompt voluntary admission, genuine remorse and good character remain significant mitigating features.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Nottingham to manslaughter and supplying methadone, a Class A drug. He had supplied methadone to a man who had consumed alcohol and ecstasy. The man died from the consequences of the overdose. A second recipient survived but sustained permanent hearing loss.

The sentencing judge imposed concurrent terms of four years and six months for manslaughter and three years for supply. The appellant appealed against sentence with leave of the single judge. The central issue was the proper sentence after allowing for the aggravating features and the appellant’s early admissions, remorse and personal mitigation.

1. The appeal was allowed. The concurrent sentences were reduced to three years and six months’ imprisonment for manslaughter and two years and six months’ imprisonment for supplying the controlled drug, producing a total sentence of three years and six months.
2. The earlier sentencing decisions were not irreconcilable. They indicated a broadly consistent approach of a sentence in the order of five years after a trial for manslaughter arising from the supply of heroin or methadone. The sentence should then be reduced as appropriate for a guilty plea and personal mitigation. The exceptional facts of a comparator case, including repeated offending after express recognition of the risk of death, explained its materially higher sentence. A reduced allowance in another case was also explained by a late plea and a local need for deterrence.
3. The present offending justified a starting point of about six years. Although the methadone had been lawfully prescribed to the appellant, the medical advice accompanying that prescription should have impressed on him the danger of combining it with alcohol. The deceased had not previously used heroin or methadone. The appellant also supplied another person, who suffered serious and permanent consequences.
4. There was substantial mitigation. The appellant voluntarily attended the police station, made full admissions, showed enduring remorse, had no malevolent motive, and was a person of good character. A full reduction for the early admission, with a further allowance for personal mitigation, made three years and six months the proper sentence for manslaughter.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted concurrent terms of three years and six months for manslaughter and two years and six months for supplying methadone: [2007] EWCA Crim 1895.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: Following guilty pleas, imposed concurrent terms of four years and six months for manslaughter and three years for supplying a Class A drug.