Obidi, R. v

A sentencing judge should explain any decision to impose a sentence below the applicable guideline range. Personal mitigation, including youth, absence of previous convictions and an unsubstantiated account of depression linked to drug use, may be insufficient to justify departure.

A defendant who pleads guilty at the first available opportunity is entitled to a one-third reduction. However, where correcting an inadequate guilty-plea reduction would still produce a longer sentence than that imposed, the Court of Appeal cannot increase sentence on the defendant’s appeal and need not reduce it.

The appellant pleaded guilty before Sussex Central Magistrates’ Court to two offences of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

At Lewes Crown Court he received concurrent sentences of two years and six months’ imprisonment. The offences involved 90 wraps of heroin and crack cocaine, together with scales and mobile telephones. The appellant sold drugs to discharge his own drug debt.

He appealed on the ground that his guilty pleas, entered at the first available opportunity, should have attracted a one-third rather than a 25 per cent reduction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant was entitled to a one-third discount for his guilty pleas because they were entered at the first available opportunity. The sentencing judge’s unexplained reference to technical reasons for allowing only a 25 per cent discount was insufficient.

2. The sentencing judge had treated the offending as category 3, significant-role street dealing. The applicable guideline starting point was four years and six months’ custody, with a range of three years and six months to seven years. The judge’s pre-discount sentence of three years and four months was below that range. He should have explained why departure was justified.

3. The appellant’s age, lack of previous convictions and account of having acquired a drug debt after losing his job did not justify a sentence outside the guideline range. The Court considered that the proper sentence before credit for plea was four years’ imprisonment.

4. A one-third reduction from that sentence would have produced two years and eight months’ imprisonment. Although this exceeded the sentence imposed, the Court could not increase sentence on the appellant’s appeal. It was therefore not appropriate to reduce the concurrent sentences of two years and six months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence dismissed.
• Crown Court at Lewes: On 25 April 2019, imposed concurrent sentences of two years and six months’ imprisonment for two Class A drug possession-with-intent-to-supply offences.
• Sussex Central Magistrates’ Court: The appellant pleaded guilty on 28 March 2019 and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.