R v Albjon Axhami

Age 18 is not a cliff edge in sentencing. An offender’s youth and maturity remain relevant after the eighteenth birthday. Aggravating factors should be reflected before mitigation, including age and previous good character, and the guilty-plea reduction should then be applied. In assessing an offender’s role in drug production, the court may consider maturity and exploitation; the absence of evidence may support a significant-role classification. A reference to the Single Competent Authority may be made whether or not the circumstances could constitute a defence under the Modern Slavery Act. Appellate intervention requires a sentence that is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The appellant, aged 19 and of previous good character, pleaded guilty to producing a class B drug after being found at premises containing approximately 900 cannabis plants. The Crown Court at Aylesbury sentenced him to two years and eight months’ imprisonment, treating the case as Category 2 with a significant role. He appealed on the grounds that insufficient weight had been given to his personal mitigation, youth and maturity, and the possibility that his role was between significant and lesser. The appeal concerned the adequacy of the sentencing approach and the role categorisation.

Appeal dismissed. The record was corrected because the appellant should have been sentenced to detention in a young offender institution rather than imprisonment.

1. Youth and maturity. The age of 18 is not a cliff edge. Youth and maturity remain relevant sentencing factors after an offender’s eighteenth birthday. The appellant’s age was therefore relevant mitigation.
2. Sentencing approach. Although the judge had not expressly explained the sequence in the sentencing remarks, the Court inferred that the judge had reflected the expected profit, unlawful electricity supply, and specialised equipment by increasing the four-year starting point before allowing for mitigation, including age and previous good character. The judge then gave the full and appropriate reduction for the guilty plea and interview admissions. Grounds concerning personal mitigation and age therefore disclosed no error.
3. Role and exploitation. The judge had expressly considered maturity and exploitation and was entitled, on the evidence, to find no indications of either. The appellant’s possession of the keys, together with the surrounding circumstances, supported the significant-role finding. The absence of a reference to the Single Competent Authority did not prevent consideration of exploitation. Such a reference could be made whether or not the circumstances amounted to a defence under the Modern Slavery Act.
4. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence and corrected the custodial designation.
• Crown Court at Aylesbury: sentenced the appellant to two years and eight months’ imprisonment for producing a class B drug.