Fletcher, R. v

For Class A drug-supply offending, the sentencing court may adopt the guideline starting point indicated by the offender’s culpability and the harm caused, then make an upward adjustment for significant aggravating features. A previous similar conviction may be seriously aggravating.

A further offence committed while on bail may justify consecutive sentences. The totality principle must be considered, but the extent of any reduction to reflect the aggregate sentence lies within the sentencing judge’s discretion. An appellate court will not interfere merely because a greater totality reduction was arguable; it must be persuaded that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent to three offences of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and to failing to surrender to custody.

He received four-year sentences for the drug offences on two indictments, to run consecutively, and a consecutive two-month sentence for failing to surrender. The judge had reduced the drug sentences to reflect totality. The appellant appealed against the aggregate sentence of eight years and two months, contending that it was manifestly excessive, that the guideline starting point was too high, and that insufficient weight had been given to totality.

1. Appeal dismissed. The aggregate sentence of eight years and two months was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The sentencing judge correctly assessed culpability and harm under the drugs offences definitive guideline and selected the appropriate starting point for Class A drug offending with intent to supply. The appellant was properly sentenced as a street dealer acting for financial or other advantage.

3. There were significant aggravating features. These included a previous conviction for a similar Class A drug offence and the commission of the later offence while on bail after failing to attend trial. Those matters justified an upward adjustment from the guideline starting point and justified consecutive sentencing between the indictments.

4. The judge had expressly applied totality. He reduced each drug sentence by six months, producing a one-year reduction in the consecutive total. The extent of that reduction was within the judge’s sentencing discretion. No further reduction was required.

5. The consecutive two-month sentence for failing to surrender was not challenged. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2018] EWCA Crim 1374.
• Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent: sentenced the appellant on 22 January 2018 to an aggregate term of eight years and two months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to Class A drug offences and failing to surrender to custody.