Carroll, R v

Supplying, or attempting to supply, drugs within a prison ordinarily calls for exemplary deterrent sentences. Drugs in prison have an inflated value, operate as currency and facilitate intimidation and violence. Sentencing must nevertheless reflect the particular offence and offender, including the quantity and prison value of the drugs, the offender’s understanding of the prison regime, licence status and personal mitigation.

A sentencing judge may take time spent in custody following an administrative recall into account when deciding whether a new sentence should run concurrently or consecutively. That approach does not itself make the new sentence excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Stafford Crown Court to possessing heroin, cannabis and cannabis resin with intent to supply after he took the drugs into Stafford Prison to pass to a prisoner. The heroin weighed 15.7 grammes, had substantial purity and had a prison value of £6,280.

He received six years’ imprisonment for the heroin offence, concurrent with twelve-month sentences for the cannabis offences and concurrent with a sentence already being served. He appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, relying on reported prison-drug cases and on the effect of his recall to custody.

1. Appeal dismissed. A six-year concurrent sentence for possession of heroin with intent to supply in prison was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court followed the deterrent approach in R v Suhail Akhtar and Mohammed Ashfaq [2008] EWCA Crim 791 and endorsed the reasoning in R v Rogers [2007] EWCA Crim 2438. Drugs in prison undermine order, function as currency and enable extortion and bullying. The difficulty of detection requires severe deterrent sentences for those who smuggle drugs into prison.

3. The court accepted that the comparators involving prison officers or a trainee solicitor included an aggravating breach of trust which was absent here. That distinction did not render the sentence excessive. The heroin quantity and prison value were substantial. The appellant understood the prison regime, was on licence for serious offences connected with class A drug misuse, and had a significant criminal record. Those features outweighed the personal mitigation and progress in custody.

4. The Recorder had properly taken account of the 93 days served after administrative recall when deciding that the new sentence should be concurrent with the existing sentence. The Recorder had not imposed an additional half-year sentence, and there was no basis to interfere.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2008] EWCA Crim 2728.
• Stafford Crown Court: imposed six years’ imprisonment for possession of heroin with intent to supply, concurrent with concurrent twelve-month sentences for the cannabis offences and with the sentence already being served.