Edwards, R. v

On an appeal against sentence, a possible over-reduction of credit for a guilty plea will not make a sentence manifestly excessive where, viewed in the round, the sentence remains within the sentencing judge’s discretion. The court must assess totality, including the scale of the drug operation, the offender’s role, and personal mitigation. A leading role in large-scale Class A drug supply may justify a substantially higher guideline category and starting point than that adopted below.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs. Following a Newton hearing, the sentencing judge rejected his account that he was merely a telephonist and found that he organised and controlled a substantial drugs line over almost 12 months.

He received concurrent sentences of eight years’ imprisonment. With leave of the single judge, he appealed on the grounds that he had received insufficient credit for his guilty plea and personal mitigation, and that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The concurrent eight-year sentences were within the sentencing judge’s discretion and were not manifestly excessive.
2. The judge was entitled, after the Newton hearing, to treat the appellant as having a leading and controlling role in a large-scale commercial operation. The volume of calls, even on assumptions favourable to the appellant about the number of calls required for each transaction and the quantity sold, demonstrated thousands of transactions and supply amounting to multiple kilograms of Class A drugs.
3. Those features could readily have placed the offending in guideline category 2A, with an 11-year starting point. The sentence imposed was therefore sustainable when assessed for totality and in the round.
4. The court accepted that there was some force in the submission that the judge may have gone too far in reducing credit for the guilty plea because of the appellant’s conduct in the proceedings. That possible error did not render the final sentence manifestly excessive.
5. The sentencing judge had considered the appellant’s personal mitigation. Even a generous allowance for it would have reduced a category 2A starting point by only about 12 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): with leave of the single judge, dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Sentencing court: imposed concurrent sentences of eight years’ imprisonment after guilty pleas and a Newton hearing.