Justas Bieksa v R

An appellate court may reduce a sentence only where it was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The review concerns whether the punishment fitted the offences when imposed. Subsequent rehabilitation, good prison behaviour and recognition of wrongdoing do not justify interference with a lawful and appropriate sentence, although they may affect prison management. A sentencing authority concerning the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on short sentences does not assist where the sentence was imposed before the pandemic and was necessarily long.

The applicant pleaded guilty in Birmingham Crown Court to offences concerning the supply of Class A and Class B drugs, and the fraudulent evasion of prohibitions on their importation. The offending involved the online sale and postal distribution of fentanyl and other drugs through a dark-web marketplace. He received a total sentence of nine years’ imprisonment.

A Single Judge refused leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant then sought a substantial extension of time to renew that application. At the renewed hearing, counsel accepted that the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. He relied instead on the applicant’s exceptional progress in custody and, initially, the tougher conditions experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The central issue was whether those post-sentence matters could justify a reduction of an otherwise lawful and appropriate sentence.

The applications were refused.

1. The court restated that it may interfere with sentence only where the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. That inquiry concerns whether the punishment fitted the offences. It is not a general reconsideration of sentence in light of later events.
2. The Recorder had correctly assessed the sophisticated international dark-web drug operation, categorised the applicant’s leading role, considered mitigation and rehabilitation, and applied totality by imposing the longer term on the principal count with the other terms concurrent. Counsel properly accepted that the resulting nine-year term was lawful and not manifestly excessive.
3. The applicant’s highly positive conduct in custody, including his assistance to staff and other prisoners, was commendable. It could affect his status and treatment in prison, but could not permit the court to reopen an appropriate sentence. The court followed the familiar principle in R v Waddingham (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 66, at p 69, that post-sentence good behaviour does not warrant reduction where the sentence remains appropriate to the seriousness of the offending.
4. The applicant no longer pursued his Covid-19 ground. In any event, R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592 concerned short sentences and could not have applied to this pre-pandemic sentence of inevitably substantial length. It was unnecessary to determine the requested extension of time.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, and the associated applications, were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2023] EWCA Crim 1405.
• Single Judge, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused leave to appeal against sentence on the papers.
• Birmingham Crown Court — following guilty pleas on 14 November 2019, imposed a total sentence of nine years’ imprisonment on 28 January 2020.