Reid, R. v

For sentencing an offence of offering to supply a Class A drug, the sentence must reflect the offender’s actual criminality. Where the offer was made solely to obtain money dishonestly, and the offender neither intended nor was able to supply drugs, the offence is in substance akin to dishonesty rather than drug dealing. A substantial sentence appropriate to genuine Class A drug supply may therefore be manifestly excessive.

The statutory minimum under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 section 110 need not be imposed where it would be unjust to do so.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Wood Green Crown Court to offering to supply crack cocaine and heroin, both Class A drugs, and to theft. He had offered an undercover officer a wrap for £20 but did not intend, and was not able, to supply drugs. His purpose was to steal the money.

Because of his previous qualifying drug convictions, section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was engaged. The Crown Court imposed five years’ imprisonment for the offering offence. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the statutory minimum should not have been applied and that five years did not reflect the true nature of the offending.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of five years’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. The 49 days spent on remand were to count towards that sentence.

2. The court accepted that it would have been unjust to impose the statutory minimum under section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Although the appellant’s antecedent record for drug offences was serious, the decisive feature was that he neither intended nor was in a position to supply drugs. His offer was made to steal the officer’s money.

3. The court applied the guidance in R v Prince [1999] 2 Cr App R(S) 419. The cases were, for practical purposes, on all fours. The difference between supplying harmless powder and supplying nothing did not justify treating this offence as genuine Class A drug dealing. The sentence had instead to reflect offending akin to theft or deception.

4. Accordingly, a five-year term was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive. A term of 12 months’ imprisonment properly reflected the appellant’s actual conduct and criminality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment for the five-year sentence.
• Wood Green Crown Court: Following guilty pleas on 9 August 2007, imposed five years’ imprisonment for offering to supply a Class A drug. No separate penalty was imposed for theft.