Cooper & Anor, R. v

For low-level possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply, sentence must reflect both the limited scale of dealing and relevant previous convictions. Where the quantities are small and the dealing is principally to fund the offenders’ own drug addiction, a three-year sentence may be excessive. A proposed sentence of 12 months may nevertheless be insufficient where the offenders have substantial records for drug possession. On the facts, concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment were appropriate.

The appellants appealed against sentences imposed at Plymouth Crown Court following guilty pleas to simple possession offences and jury convictions for possession of Class B and Class C drugs with intent to supply.

Police had stopped them in a car and recovered relatively small quantities of amphetamine, diazepam, ketamine, MDMA and cannabis. Both appellants said that the drugs were for personal use, but the jury found an intention to supply. The sentencing judge accepted that the dealing was at the lower end of the scale and imposed concurrent sentences of up to three years’ imprisonment.

The central issue was the appropriate sentence for small-scale drug dealing undertaken primarily to finance the appellants’ addictions, having regard to their criminal records.

1. The appeals against sentence were allowed. The concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment for the relevant offences were reduced to concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment.

2. The quantities of drugs were small. The sentencing judge had accepted that the appellants’ dealing was at the lower end of the scale. The court considered that they were small-time dealers whose dealing was primarily, if not solely, undertaken to fund their own addictions. In that context, sentences of three years were excessive.

3. A starting range of about 12 months’ imprisonment, advanced for the appellants, did not adequately reflect their records. Each had many convictions for possession of drugs, although neither had a significant or recent conviction for possession with intent to supply. Balancing those matters, 18 months’ imprisonment was the appropriate penalty.

4. The court did not interfere with the order made under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 requiring Cooper to serve six months of the unexpired part of an earlier sentence. That period remained to be served before the reduced sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeals against sentence and reduced the relevant concurrent sentences from three years to 18 months’ imprisonment.

• Plymouth Crown Court Following guilty pleas to simple possession counts and jury convictions for possession with intent to supply, imposed concurrent sentences of up to three years’ imprisonment. In Cooper’s case it also made a return-to-custody order under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.