R v Joshua Jason Porter

Where legislation imposes a minimum sentence for repeat Class A drug trafficking, a street dealer’s personal addiction and related circumstances do not, without more, make the minimum unjust. The statutory exception requires particular circumstances relating to the offence or offender which make imposing the minimum unjust in all the circumstances.

A guilty-plea reduction must respect the statutory floor. On an appeal by the offender, however, the court cannot correct an arithmetic error which produced a lower sentence, because it cannot increase the sentence overall. The restriction does not apply as an Attorney General’s reference.

The applicant pleaded guilty to six offences, including two Class A drug-trafficking offences, possession offences and possession of a bladed article. He had previous Class A drug-trafficking convictions, so the sentencing judge applied the seven-year minimum sentence under Sentencing Act 2020, subject to the statutory guilty-plea reduction.

The Crown Court imposed an overall sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant renewed an application for permission to appeal against sentence, arguing that particular circumstances made the minimum unjust. He also sought an extension of time. The court considered whether the minimum should have been displaced and whether an arithmetical error in calculating the reduction could be corrected.

1. Renewed application dismissed. The court agreed with the single judge that the applicant’s circumstances and offending did not make it unjust to impose the statutory minimum. There is no rule that the minimum is unjust for a street dealer whose dealing is a by-product of personal addiction. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the case fell within Parliament’s intention to impose the minimum, including to allow time to address addiction and to provide punishment and deterrence for repeat offending (para [14]). The challenge was not reasonably arguable (para [15]).
2. Under Sentencing Act 2020, the two relevant offences were Class A trafficking offences and the applicant’s previous convictions triggered the seven-year minimum. The statutory exception applies only where particular circumstances relating to the offences or offender make that sentence unjust in all the circumstances. The maximum guilty-plea reduction was 20 per cent, because the sentence could not fall below 80 per cent of the minimum (para [6]).
3. The sentencing judge reduced the seven-year minimum by 18 months, exceeding the permitted reduction by 1.2 months. That error was favourable to the applicant. This court could not correct it on an offender’s appeal: the matter was not an Attorney General’s reference under Criminal Justice Act 1988, and Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s 11(3) prevented a sentence which would make the applicant more severely dealt with overall (para [16]). The sentence therefore remained undisturbed.
4. The court considered a full pre-sentence report unnecessary under Sentencing Act 2020 s 33 (para [5]). It refused the 106-day extension of time because the renewed application had no merit, and dismissed the renewed application (paras [17]-[18]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused an extension of time and dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence. The Crown Court sentence remained undisturbed: [2022] EWCA Crim 1867.
• Crown Court at Basildon: on 12 November 2021, imposed an overall sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment.