Bondzie, R. v

Sentencing guidelines for drug supply already reflect the collective social harm caused by drug dealing. A court should not enhance an individual sentence merely because offending of that kind is prevalent locally.

A prevalence enhancement is exceptional. It requires reliable external evidence, timely disclosure and an opportunity for representations. The court must be satisfied that local harm significantly exceeds that already inherent in the guideline, that circumstances are exceptional, and that an increase is just and proportionate. The sentencing judge must identify prevalence as a factor and explain its effect on sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Canterbury to three offences of supplying class A drugs and one offence of being concerned in their supply. The supplies occurred during an undercover police operation targeting drug dealing in Ramsgate. He received a total of four years and ten months’ detention in a young offender institution, including a consecutive six-month term on activation of a suspended sentence.

He appealed on the ground that the starting point for the drug offences was excessive. The appeal raised whether the sentencing judge had increased sentence because of local prevalence of class A drug dealing, and, if so, whether that was justified and procedurally fair.

1. Appeal allowed. The total sentence was reduced from four years and ten months to four years. The court substituted a term of three years and six months on count 4, with the consecutive six-month term imposed on activation of the suspended sentence remaining in place.
2. The drugs guideline already allowed for the harmful social effects of drug supply. A sentencing judge could therefore not enhance the sentence simply because drug dealing harms a neighbourhood or because the judge considered that there was too much offending of that kind locally.
3. Prevalence could justify enhancement only in exceptional local circumstances. There had to be evidence from a responsible body or senior police officer. It had to be disclosed in sufficient time for meaningful representations. The judge also had to be satisfied that local harm significantly exceeded that inherent in the guideline, that the circumstances were exceptional, and that enhancement was just and proportionate in the individual case.
4. Where the Crown relies on prevalence, it must expressly identify the issue, the evidential material and the relevant guideline. If the judge raises it independently, the judge must invite submissions. A sentence relying on prevalence must clearly say so and explain its influence.
5. The evidence concerning Thanet described serious drug-related harm, but did not show harm significantly different from that in other areas. In any event, prevalence had not been clearly raised at this appellant’s sentencing hearing. The starting point could properly reflect repeated offending on three dates and supply of two class A drugs, but it could not justify six years and six months before guilty-plea credit. A sentence of a little over five years before credit, reduced to three years and six months, was appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a total sentence of four years.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: Following guilty pleas, imposed a total of four years and ten months’ detention in a young offender institution.