JJ, R. v

When sentencing an offender for drug offences committed under the age of 18, the court must give sufficient weight to youth and to background circumstances that reduce culpability. Delay not attributable to the offender and the absence of relevant convictions may also justify reduction. A consecutive sentence may be appropriate for further offending committed on bail, but the aggregate term must still satisfy totality. A sentence which gives insufficient effect to those matters, or produces an excessive overall term for a young offender serving a first custodial sentence, is manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to cocaine supply offences committed at 17 and, while on bail for those offences, to possession of ecstasy and cannabis with intent to supply at 18. The Crown accepted that, in relation to the ecstasy, he had a significant rather than leading role and acted as a custodian and deliverer for more sophisticated offenders.

At Manchester Crown Court he received concurrent three-year terms for the cocaine offences and a consecutive four-year term for the later ecstasy offence, making seven years’ detention in a young offender institution. He appealed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive, having regard to his age, previous good character, delay, and totality.

1. Appeal allowed. The overall term of seven years’ detention in a young offender institution was manifestly excessive and was reduced to five years.

2. For the cocaine offences, the adult guideline starting point was four and a half years. Proper allowance for the appellant’s age of 17 reduced the appropriate pre-credit sentence to about three and a half years. Further allowance was required for delay not caused by him, his lack of convictions at that stage, and his background. He had grown up in a household in which serious drug dealing was an accepted part of life. That background reduced his culpability to some degree.

3. After those reductions and 25 per cent credit for guilty pleas, the concurrent three-year terms for the first indictment were excessive. They were quashed and replaced with concurrent terms of 12 months’ detention.

4. The four-year consecutive term for the later ecstasy offence was not excessive in itself. The offence was committed on bail, so a consecutive sentence was appropriate. However, totality required an additional reduction because the appellant was still only 19, was serving his first custodial sentence, and the resulting aggregate term was substantial.

5. The consecutive four-year term on the second indictment was left in place. Together with the substituted concurrent 12-month terms, it produced the appropriate overall sentence of five years’ detention in a young offender institution.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and varied the total sentence from seven years to five years’ detention in a young offender institution.
• Crown Court at Manchester: On 11 October 2016 imposed concurrent three-year detention terms for cocaine supply offences and a consecutive four-year detention term for later ecstasy supply offending, totalling seven years.