Curtis, R v

For drug-supply sentencing under the definitive guideline, conduct facilitating individual street transactions may properly be treated as street dealing and categorised at level 3 despite low quantities or value, which are secondary in that context. A sentencing challenge also fails where the aggravating features justify the sentence even on the lower alternative categorisation. Immediate custody may be justified where repeated failure to comply with non-custodial orders makes suspension inappropriate.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity to two offences of supplying Class A controlled drugs, contrary to section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He had acted as an intermediary in two separate street-level drug transactions during a police operation.

At Manchester Crown Court, he received two concurrent sentences of two years’ immediate imprisonment after full credit for his guilty plea. He renewed an out-of-time application for permission to appeal against sentence. He contended that the offences should have been categorised at level 4 rather than level 3, that the starting point was excessive, and that the sentences should have been suspended.

1. The court granted a short extension of time to renew the application, but refused permission to appeal against sentence.

2. The sentencing judge had been entitled to categorise the offences as category 3, lesser role, under the definitive drug-offences guideline. Although the applicant acted as a go-between rather than a direct seller, the conduct was properly characterised as street dealing. The low quantity, value and purity of the drugs did not displace that categorisation, since quantity and value were secondary factors in that context.

3. There was, in any event, no arguable basis for saying that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Even if the offences had fallen within category 4, the aggravating features justified a starting point at the top of that category’s range. Those features included the applicant’s extensive and relevant offending history, the impact on the community, and two separate transactions six weeks apart rather than isolated conduct.

4. The court also held that two years’ immediate imprisonment was wholly justified. The applicant’s long history of non-compliance with community orders and other non-custodial sentences entitled the judge to conclude that suspension was inappropriate. The full one-third reduction for the guilty plea had already been applied.

5. No loss of time order was made.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted an extension of time to renew the application and refused permission to appeal against the two-year immediate sentence.
• Manchester Crown Court: On 12 January 2018, sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment concurrently for two Class A drug-supply offences after a guilty plea.