Murten, R. v

An appellate court will dismiss a sentence appeal unless the sentence is manifestly excessive. A sentencing judge may properly take a stern view of planned drug supply at a music festival, including the need for local deterrence where drug dealing at that event is a recurring problem. A sentence within the applicable guideline range will not be altered merely because the appellate court might have imposed a different sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Chester to possessing cocaine and ketamine with intent to supply. He had intended to bring the drugs into the Creamfields music festival for sale and had concealed them in a modified container.

He received concurrent sentences of 42 months’ imprisonment for the cocaine offence and 18 months for the ketamine offence. He appealed with leave, contending that the total sentence of three and a half years was excessive, particularly given his lack of previous convictions and personal mitigation.

The central issue was whether the judge had been entitled to sentence sternly within the applicable Sentencing Council drug-offences guideline range.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
2. The offending was category 3 offending with a significant role under the applicable definitive drug-offences guideline. The stated range was three years six months to seven years’ custody, with a starting point of four years six months. The sentence imposed was therefore within the range available to the sentencing judge.
3. The judge was entitled to treat the offending as careful and planned. The appellant had made a determined effort to conceal drugs for sale at a festival, despite warnings directed at those attending about the risks of drug dealing.
4. It was also legitimate to give weight to the local need to deter drug supply at the Creamfields festival. The involvement of two types of drugs, the planned concealment and the festival context entitled the judge to take a stern view, notwithstanding the appellant’s lack of convictions, his positive character material and the fact that this was his first custodial sentence.
5. The Court of Appeal’s function was not to substitute a different sentence or to tinker with a stern sentence properly imposed within the guideline range. The judge’s assessment disclosed no excess requiring appellate intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appellant’s sentence appeal.
• Crown Court at Chester: On 26 November 2020, sentenced the appellant to 42 months’ imprisonment for possessing cocaine with intent to supply and 18 months concurrently for possessing ketamine with intent to supply.