Lea, R v

The drug-offences guideline may legitimately inform sentencing for drug-related offences under the Prison Act 1952, but it must not be applied mechanically. Drug weight will normally determine the harm category. However, supplying drugs into prison is a serious aggravating feature because it threatens prison order and discipline and increases the risk of violence.

Planning, links to criminal activity within the prison, and features of organised offending may justify a higher harm category than quantity alone suggests. A custodial sentence remains appropriate for serious planned conveyance of drugs into prison, notwithstanding strong personal mitigation and an early guilty plea.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Isleworth Crown Court to conveying a list A article into prison contrary to section 40 B of the Prison Act 1952. She had attempted to take 74 grams of cannabis, concealed in two packages, into HMP Wormwood Scrubs for an inmate whom the authorities believed to be involved in criminal activity in the prison.

The sentencing judge imposed 20 months’ imprisonment. The applicant, aged 21 and of previous good character, applied for leave to appeal her sentence. She submitted that the judge had adopted too high a starting point, insufficiently reflected personal mitigation and the early plea, and had not properly applied the relevant drug-offences guideline.

The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and, if so, the proper guideline categorisation and custodial term.

1. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed. The sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive and was substituted with 12 months’ imprisonment.

2. The drug-offences guideline did not expressly cover offences under the Prison Act 1952. Nevertheless, the court could legitimately have regard to it, provided that it did not apply it over-mechanically. That approach followed R v Kelly Hamilton [2016] EWCA Crim 78.

3. Seventy-four grams of cannabis would normally place the offence in category 4 when harm is assessed by weight. Supply into a prison was, however, an important aggravating feature. Drugs are valuable in prison, undermine order and discipline, and increase the risk of violence. Consistently with R v Vergilio Melim [2014] EWCA Crim 1915, prison supply could place a case at the top of the otherwise appropriate category range.

4. This offence was planned, involved a significant quantity of cannabis, was intended for a person believed to be involved in prison criminality, and bore the hallmarks of organised crime. Those features justified category 3 harm. The applicant had a significant role. Although the applicable range was 26 weeks to three years’ custody, the judge’s approximate starting point of three years was too high. A starting point of about two years was appropriate.

5. After allowing for the applicant’s strong personal mitigation and early guilty plea, the proper sentence was 12 months’ imprisonment. The seriousness of planned drug conveyance into prison meant that the substituted sentence had to be immediate rather than suspended. The order that 11 days count towards sentence under section 240 A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was confirmed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave to appeal sentence and reduced the sentence from 20 months’ imprisonment to 12 months’ immediate imprisonment.
• Isleworth Crown Court: Following a guilty plea, imposed 20 months’ imprisonment for conveying a list A article into prison.