R v Warren Davis

Where a sentencing guideline gives an indicative drug quantity for a starting point, the court must adjust that starting point to reflect a materially lower quantity actually involved. It must then apply totality by increasing the lead sentence to reflect other connected offending, while allowing proper mitigation and the appropriate reduction for an early guilty plea.

A sentence is manifestly excessive where those adjustments produce a materially lower proper sentence than that imposed.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Wood Green to possessing heroin and cocaine with intent to supply, and to possessing criminal property. He accepted that he had performed a significant role as a trusted courier, holding and transporting drugs and cash for others.

The recorder selected the heroin offence as the lead offence, adopted an eight-year starting point and, after increasing for the other offences and reducing by one third for the guilty plea, imposed six years and four months’ imprisonment.

He appealed on the grounds that the starting point wrongly reflected one kilogram of heroin, insufficient credit was given for mitigation, and the increase for the additional offending was disproportionate.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of six years and four months for the heroin offence was quashed and replaced with five years and four months. The concurrent sentences for the cocaine and criminal-property offences remained unaltered.

2. The appellant’s significant role and the substantial quantity of heroin placed the offence in Category 2 under the Sentencing Council guideline. However, the eight-year starting point corresponded to an indicative quantity of one kilogram. Since the quantity was 743 grams, the starting point should have been adjusted downward to about six years.

3. The cocaine and criminal-property offences required an upward adjustment under the totality principle. In the circumstances, they justified an increase from the six-year starting point to about eight and a half years.

4. The mitigation was limited. The absence of recent relevant convictions, and the fact that the only previous conviction concerned cannabis 14 years earlier, justified a further reduction to about eight years. The appellant was then entitled to the one-third reduction for his early guilty plea. The proper sentence was therefore five years and four months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1650, allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the lead sentence and substituted five years and four months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: On 23 April 2024, imposed a total sentence of six years and four months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.