R v Robert Wooldridge

Under the pre-amendment minimum-sentence regime in the Sentencing Act 2020, the prescribed custodial term must be imposed unless particular circumstances relating to the offence or offender make that result unjust in all the circumstances. The regime has a deterrent purpose. Ordinary features of addiction, rehabilitation and personal vulnerability cannot be treated as particular circumstances merely to avoid the statutory minimum.

The sentencing court should first apply the relevant guideline and then cross-check that the resulting sentence is not below the statutory minimum. The statutory minimum is not the starting point. A procedural or legal error will not justify appellate intervention where it made no material difference and the sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Exeter to possessing cocaine and diamorphine, both Class A drugs, with intent to supply, and to obstructing a constable. He had previous convictions for Class A drug trafficking. On 19 May 2023, the Recorder imposed concurrent sentences of 66 months’ imprisonment for the drug offences, after reducing the applicable seven-year statutory minimum by 20 per cent for the guilty pleas.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that the Recorder had applied the later and stricter exceptional-circumstances test rather than the applicable particular-circumstances test. He relied on evidence of drug abstinence, rehabilitation, mental-health needs and prospects of community treatment. The central issue was whether the statutory minimum was unjust in all the circumstances, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The applicant was subject to the minimum-sentence regime for repeat Class A trafficking. As the offending pre-dated the amendment, the applicable question under Sentencing Act 2020 was whether particular circumstances relating to the offences or offender made the statutory minimum unjust in all the circumstances.

2. The court applied the principles in Attorney General’s Reference (R v Marland) [2018] EWCA Crim 1770 and R v Lucas [2012] 2 Cr App R(S) 14. Parliament intended minimum sentences to deter. Normal circumstances cannot be elevated into particular circumstances in order to circumvent that purpose. The applicant’s rehabilitation, abstinence, treatment needs and social stability were laudable, but were circumstances frequently encountered in this class of case. His continued serious drug offending and extensive relevant record meant that they did not make the minimum term unjust.

3. The Recorder had referred to exceptional circumstances and had not adopted the sentencing sequence stated in R v Silvera [2013] EWCA Crim 1764. A court should first sentence under the applicable guideline and then ensure that the sentence is no lower than the statutory minimum. Those errors were immaterial here. Given the applicant’s record, a guideline sentence would in any event have been at the upper end of the range. The sentence of five years and six months was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2023] EWCA Crim 1410.
• Crown Court at Exeter — On 19 May 2023, imposed concurrent sentences of 66 months’ imprisonment for two Class A possession-with-intent-to-supply offences, with no separate penalty for obstructing a constable.