Miah, R v

A defendant who waits for service of the prosecution evidence before pleading guilty cannot ordinarily claim to have pleaded at the first reasonable opportunity where a co-accused was able to plead at the earlier hearing. A sentencing judge may estimate the scale of a drug conspiracy from available evidence and may adopt the lower of competing estimates. An attempt to evade arrest by ramming a police vehicle may properly be treated as a significant aggravating feature where it demonstrates determination to continue drug supply offending.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Southwark to two offences of conspiracy to supply heroin and cocaine. He had acted as a regular driver in a large-scale London drug-supply operation conducted over about five months.

He received concurrent sentences of six years and six months’ imprisonment. The single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence. On renewal to the Court of Appeal, the applicant challenged the reduction for his guilty pleas, the estimation of drug quantity for the sentencing guideline, and the aggravating weight given to his ramming of a police vehicle while escaping.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. None of the three proposed grounds was arguable.
2. The applicant was entitled to await service of the prosecution evidence. However, having chosen not to plead at the first Crown Court hearing, he could not claim that his later pleas were entered at the first reasonable opportunity. A co-accused had pleaded at that earlier hearing and received full credit. The 25 per cent reduction was therefore unobjectionable.
3. The sentencing judge’s assessment that the conspiracy involved significantly more than one kilogram of class A drugs was open to him. He considered estimates based both on the volume of calls and texts to the drugs line and on drugs found or seized on arrest. Although those methods gave different results, he adopted the lower estimate in fairness to the defendants.
4. The judge was entitled to treat the applicant’s ramming of a police vehicle as a significant aggravating feature. It demonstrated the conspirators’ determination to escape arrest and continue their drug-supply business.
5. The court held that the renewed application was wholly without merit. It directed that 28 days already spent in custody should not count towards the applicant’s total sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused, and a 28-day loss of time order was made.
• Single judge: Leave to appeal against sentence was refused on the papers.
• Crown Court at Southwark: On 13 October 2016, the applicant received concurrent sentences of six years and six months’ imprisonment after guilty pleas to two conspiracies to supply class A drugs.