Dalessandro, R v

Where two counts charge possession with intent to supply of the same controlled drug at the same time, consecutive sentences for those counts are wrong in principle. The sentence must reflect the single possession rather than impose cumulative punishment for overlapping counts.

In fixing the proper total sentence, the court may make a further reduction for inexcusable and inordinate prosecutorial delay. The overall sentence should reflect both the offending as a whole and the unfairness caused by that delay.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Northampton Crown Court to possession offences involving GHB, anabolic steroids and other controlled drugs. He admitted intending to supply GHB and steroids within a restricted group of experienced competitive bodybuilders.

He received a total of three years’ imprisonment. This included consecutive sentences for two GHB counts. Although count 16 had initially concerned a later search, it was amended to allege possession on 23 December 2004, because the GHB had been present but not found during the earlier search.

On an appeal against sentence, the central issues were whether consecutive sentences could properly be imposed for the two GHB counts and what allowance should be made for the lengthy delay after the proceedings were discharged in 2005 before they were revived in 2007.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent of reducing the sentence to 18 months’ imprisonment.

2. The consecutive sentence on count 16 was wrong in principle. Counts 5 and 16 both charged possession with intent to supply GHB in December 2004. Count 16 had been amended to reflect the accepted basis of plea that the 11,316 grams of GHB found in March 2005 had already been in the storeroom at the December 2004 search. The counts therefore concerned overlapping possession and did not justify consecutive punishment.

3. Having regard to the scale and value of the drugs, the limited intended supply, the guilty pleas, mitigation and previous good character, an overall sentence of two years would otherwise have been appropriate.

4. The delay was inexcusable and inordinate. After the case was discharged because prosecution papers were not ready in May 2005, the Crown Prosecution Service did not seek to revive it until April 2007. Allowance for that delay reduced the proper overall sentence to 18 months.

5. The court substituted a concurrent sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment on count 16. The total sentence was accordingly 18 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted an overall sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.
• Northampton Crown Court: following guilty pleas, imposed a total sentence of three years’ imprisonment on 11 February 2008.