Hall, R. v

For an offence of assisting the supply of Class A drugs contrary to section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, sentence should generally reflect the anticipated offending. The appropriate sentence will not usually differ substantially, and may not differ at all, from that for the anticipated offence or a conspiracy to commit it. The potential scale of the anticipated drug supply is highly relevant.

Charges properly joined need not be severed where evidence on one count would be admissible on another. Bad-character evidence relevant to an important issue between prosecution and defence may be admitted through section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Four appellants challenged convictions and sentences arising from large-scale importations of benzocaine, a substance commonly used to adulterate cocaine. Clifford Hall was convicted after trial of assisting the supply of Class A drugs and of possessing controlled drugs with intent to supply. Simon Walsh and Darryl Walsh pleaded guilty to assisting the supply of Class A drugs. Benjamin Lawrence pleaded guilty to being concerned in the supply of cocaine.

At Preston Crown Court, His Honour Judge Woolman sentenced the appellants on 9 November 2012. Hall renewed his application for permission to appeal against conviction and, with the other appellants, appealed against sentence. The central sentencing issue was the proper assessment of culpability and sentence for an offence under section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction and all the sentence appeals were dismissed.

2. The counts against Hall were properly joined. Evidence concerning his possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply was admissible on the section 46 count, even if the counts had been tried separately. It was relevant to whether he believed that the benzocaine would be used to adulterate cocaine. There was therefore no prejudice or embarrassment requiring severance.

3. The prosecution should have made an application before introducing evidence of Hall’s prior cocaine caution. The irregularity did not render the convictions unsafe. The evidence was difficult to characterise as evidence relating to the facts of the offence and excluded by section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It was nevertheless admissible under section 101(1)(d), because it was relevant to the important issue of Hall’s belief about the intended use of the benzocaine.

4. There was no directly applicable guideline for offences under section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. The sentencing judge was entitled to use the guideline for the anticipated cocaine-supply offending as an appropriate aid. The court applied the reasoning in Watling [2013] 2 Cr App R (S) 37: the statutory maximum and the potential scale of the anticipated offences make that scale highly relevant. Where the ingredients of section 46 are proved or admitted, the sentence will generally not differ significantly from that for the anticipated offence or a conspiracy to commit it.

5. The judge was entitled to treat Hall and the Walsh brothers as having significant roles. The quantities involved justified the starting point adopted. There was no manifest excess, disparity, or totality error in any individual sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction and appeals against sentence dismissed: [2013] EWCA Crim 2499.
• Crown Court at Preston: His Honour Judge Woolman convicted Hall after trial, accepted the other relevant guilty pleas, and sentenced the appellants on 9 November 2012.