James, R. v

For the third Class A drug-trafficking minimum sentence, a defendant’s youth when the qualifying offences were committed may amount to particular circumstances making the prescribed minimum unjust. That conclusion may be reinforced where the defendant has not previously served a custodial sentence. Where the statutory minimum is displaced, the restricted guilty-plea reduction under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 144(2) does not apply. The court should instead give the ordinary appropriate credit for an early guilty plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to possessing cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin and cannabis with intent to supply, and to possessing criminal property. He was a repeat Class A drug dealer. The sentencing judge treated him as subject to the seven-year minimum under section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and imposed five years 220 days after the restricted 20 per cent guilty-plea reduction.

By leave of the single judge, he appealed on the basis that his age when the qualifying offences were committed, his previous non-custodial disposals and his lack of previous custody made the minimum sentence unjust. The issue was whether those matters amounted to particular circumstances under section 110.

1. Appeal allowed. The judge should have found particular circumstances relating to the appellant which made it unjust to impose the seven-year statutory minimum under section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

2. The appellant’s repeat offending for financial gain was the type of offending at which section 110 was directed. A substantial immediate custodial sentence was therefore inevitable. There was no mitigation in the offences themselves.

3. Nevertheless, the qualifying Class A drug offences had been committed when the appellant was 14, 16 and shortly after 17. He remained relatively young and had never previously received a custodial sentence. Those features, particularly his age when the qualifying offences were committed, were particular circumstances making the prescribed seven-year term unjust.

4. The appropriate sentence after a trial was six years’ imprisonment. Once the statutory minimum was disapplied, the 20 per cent restriction in section 144(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 no longer governed the plea discount. The appellant had indicated at the preliminary hearing that he would plead guilty and pleaded guilty at the next hearing. He was entitled to the full one-third credit.

5. The concurrent sentences of five years 220 days were quashed and replaced by concurrent sentences of four years’ imprisonment. The ancillary orders stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted concurrent sentences of four years’ imprisonment.
• Leeds Crown Court: On 16 February 2011, imposed concurrent sentences of five years 220 days after applying section 110 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and the restricted guilty-plea reduction in section 144(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.