Goddard, R v

In a sentence appeal alleging disparity between co-defendants, the question is whether an informed, right-minded observer would conclude that the equal treatment showed that something had gone wrong in the administration of justice. Equal sentences may be proper where the offenders played active but different roles and one offender has distinct mitigation or is also sentenced for another offence. The court will not interfere unless the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Wholesale involvement in Class A drug supply may justify a sentence more severe than that imposed on a lower-level street dealer.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to being concerned in the supply of cocaine and received three years and six months’ imprisonment. He had travelled as passenger in a car carrying cash for a drug exchange and, during a police pursuit, threw from the vehicle a bag containing cocaine.

A co-defendant, Jones, received the same sentence for the supply offence, together with a consecutive sentence for dangerous driving. Jones relied on mitigation arising from drug addiction, debt and threats, while the applicant had no financial gain and asserted that this was his only involvement in drug supply.

The Registrar referred the applicant’s application for leave to appeal. The central issue was whether the equal sentences created an unjustified disparity.

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. The court held that the proposed appeal had no merit.

1. The applicable disparity inquiry was whether a right-minded member of the public, fully informed of the facts, would think that equal treatment of the applicant and Jones demonstrated a failure in the administration of justice.

2. That test was not met. Both men were actively involved in the cocaine supply operation, although in different ways. Jones had personal mitigation arising from his circumstances as a cocaine addict in debt to his dealer. The sentencing judge also had to apply totality because Jones was sentenced for dangerous driving, an offence which did not involve the applicant.

3. The court considered the sentences lenient for an operation at wholesale rather than street-dealing level. It referred to R v Djahit [1999] 2 Cr App R(S) 142 as illustrating that even lower-level Class A street dealing could attract a substantial sentence. The applicant’s sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Registrar referred the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The application was dismissed: [2007] EWCA Crim 766.
• Chelmsford Crown Court: On 26 October 2006, the applicant pleaded guilty to being concerned in the supply of cocaine and was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment.