R v David William Ryan

For a drug-supply offence, a category based on direct sales to users may apply even where the quantity is below the guideline’s indicative amount. The offender’s role must nevertheless be assessed in the round, including the agreed basis of plea. Where the facts place the offender within, or materially closer to, a lesser role than a significant role, sentencing should begin from the lesser-role range.

Following conviction for dangerous driving, an extended driving test is mandatory unless such an order is already in force. Where imprisonment extends a driving disqualification, the court must identify separately the discretionary disqualification, the relevant statutory extension and any uplift attributable to imprisonment.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Manchester to dangerous driving, assaulting an emergency worker, and possessing cocaine with intent to supply. He received a total of 42 months’ imprisonment: 30 months for the drug offence, 12 months consecutively for dangerous driving, and one month concurrently for the assault. He was disqualified from driving for 39 months.

He appealed his sentence with leave of the single judge. The principal issue was whether the drug offence, although category 3 because it involved supply directly to users, should have been treated as a lesser rather than significant role under the applicable sentencing guideline. The appeal also required correction of the driving disqualification and extended-test order.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The 30-month sentence for possessing cocaine with intent to supply was manifestly excessive. It was reduced by six months, reducing the overall custodial term from 42 to 36 months.

2. The offence properly fell within category 3 because it involved direct supply to users, as shown by the telephone messages, despite the actual quantity of cocaine being about 18 grams rather than the guideline’s 150-gram indicative quantity for that category. The quantity remained relevant when fixing sentence within the category.

3. Viewed in the round and in light of the accepted basis of plea, the appellant’s role was within, or substantially closer to, a lesser role than a significant role. The proper starting point before guilty-plea credit was therefore three years’ custody. The court also took account of the relatively low quantity of drugs, while recognising the seriousness of the dangerous driving and the need to assess totality.

4. Under section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, disqualification following dangerous driving had to continue until the appellant passed an extended driving test, because no prior order for such a test was in force. Applying R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455, the court separately identified an 18-month discretionary disqualification, a six-month section 35A extension for dangerous driving, and a 12-month section 35B uplift for the drug-imprisonment term. The resulting disqualification was 36 months, subject to passing the extended test.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2022] EWCA Crim 1628, allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of reducing the drug sentence and varying the driving disqualification.
• Crown Court at Manchester — on 6 May 2022, imposed a total sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment and disqualified the appellant from driving for 39 months.