Dickinson, R v

A sentencing court dealing with the conveyance of controlled drugs into prison may have regard to the Sentencing Council drug-offences guideline, even where the offence is under the Prison Act 1952. The guideline must not be applied mechanically.

Such offending generally requires immediate custody because drugs seriously endanger prison order, safety and discipline. Personal mitigation, including vulnerability, remorse and good character, must be considered but may be outweighed by deterrence and the seriousness of introducing drugs, particularly Class A drugs, into prison.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Exeter to conveying controlled drugs, including crack cocaine, into a prison for delivery to her boyfriend, who was remanded in custody. She received six months’ immediate imprisonment.

She appealed on the grounds that the sentence was wrong in principle and should have been suspended. She relied on her effective good character, emotional vulnerability, psychiatric evidence, remorse and the impact of imprisonment upon her family. The central issue was whether those matters outweighed the seriousness and deterrent need associated with bringing drugs into prison.

1. Appeal dismissed after leave was granted. The sentence of six months’ immediate imprisonment was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. There was no offence-specific sentencing guideline under the Prison Act 1952, but section 125(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 required a sentencing court to follow relevant guidelines unless that would be contrary to the interests of justice. Applying R v Hamilton [2016] EWCA Crim 78, the court held that it was legitimate to have regard to the drugs-offences guideline, while avoiding an over-mechanical application of it.

3. The range stated in R v Agus [2017] EWCA Crim 1273 did not govern this case. The circumstances materially differed because this applicant was carrying a Class A drug into prison, and it was unclear which authorities and level of seriousness had informed the range in Agus.

4. The judge had given full credit for the guilty plea and had properly taken account of the psychiatric evidence, personal history, remorse and low risk of reoffending. Those matters did not outweigh the serious risks that prison drugs create for prisoners, staff, order and discipline. The intended supply of drugs in prison was also seriously aggravating because of their enhanced value there. Immediate custody was therefore justified and suspension was not possible.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In R v Dickinson [2017] EWCA Crim 2067, the court granted leave and dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Exeter: On 29 September 2017, the applicant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment following her guilty plea to conveying a List A article into prison contrary to the Prison Act 1952.