R v David Glover

On a sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal will not intervene merely because a sentence is severe or differs from sentences imposed on co-defendants. A sentence should stand where the judge correctly assessed seriousness, applied guilty-plea and totality principles, and explained material differences in culpability.

Dishonest Newton evidence which substantially understates offending may justify reducing guilty-plea credit. The appellate court will give weight to the sentencing judge’s assessment of evidence heard at trial. Serious firearms offending connected with drug activity may properly attract a consecutive sentence. Disparity is objectionable only where it indicates that the administration of justice has gone wrong.

The applicant pleaded guilty to seven counts involving Class A and Class B drugs, criminal property, firearms and ammunition, and was acquitted of four further counts. On 27 September 2023, the Crown Court at Basildon sentenced him to 23 years and 8 months’ imprisonment, including a consecutive five-year sentence for possessing prohibited weapons.

After a single judge refused leave to appeal, the applicant renewed his oral application. He challenged the firearms sentence and consecutive order, the reduction in guilty-plea credit following his unsuccessful Newton evidence, and the alleged disparity between his sentence and those of his co-defendants. The central issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had properly applied totality and disparity principles.

Mrs Justice Stacey gave the judgment of the court. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. Firearms sentence and totality. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess the post-trial sentence for possession of prohibited weapons at 10 years. The relevant features included four prohibited firearms, two of them loaded, the intended criminal purpose, the intention to produce the weapons in public or cause fear, and the high risk of serious physical harm. After guilty-plea credit and a further totality adjustment, the five-year sentence was the statutory minimum under section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968. It was not manifestly excessive. A consecutive sentence for the firearms offending and concurrent treatment of the ammunition offence were also proper applications of totality principles.
2. Drug sentences and guilty-plea credit. The applicant did not challenge the judge’s assessment that the principal drug offences warranted a 22-year sentence before credit. The judge was entitled to reduce the available discount because the applicant’s unsuccessful Newton evidence was dishonest and materially understated the scale of his cocaine operation. Credit for a guilty plea remained discretionary. The judge had heard the applicant give evidence over two and a half days, considered the mitigation and totality, and was not shown to have erred in declining additional credit for information which used material already in police possession and involved no demonstrated safety risk.
3. Disparity. The test was whether right-thinking members of the public would consider that the administration of justice had gone wrong. The sentencing judge had carefully explained the differences in the offenders’ roles, culpability, harm, offences and plea timing. The co-defendants had not required Newton hearings. Their sentences therefore provided no proper analogy, particularly as the applicant’s role in the drug supply and conspiracy offending was considerably greater.
4. Overall conclusion. Sufficient account had been taken of totality. The sentence was not manifestly excessive because of the starting point, the guilty-plea reduction, the consecutive firearms sentence or the disparity with co-defendants.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a renewed oral application, refused leave to appeal against sentence: [2024] EWCA Crim 1347.
• Single judge: Refused the initial application for leave to appeal.
• Crown Court at Basildon: On 27 September 2023, HHJ Cohen sentenced the applicant to 23 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.