R v Kemani Dunn

In a sentencing appeal, the appellate court may reduce a custodial sentence where the sentencing judge was entitled to increase the guideline starting point but gave insufficient weight to personal mitigation which moderated the appropriate uplift. The quantity and variety of drugs, a bulking agent and cash may justify an increase for significant-role street dealing. However, the absence of previous supply convictions or imprisonment, and offending connected with the offender’s addiction, may materially limit that increase.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Wood Green of three offences of possessing Class A drugs with intent and one offence of possessing criminal property. She also pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis. The sentencing judge treated the Class A offences as significant-role, category 3 street dealing under the Sentencing Guidelines and imposed concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment.

With the single judge’s leave, the appellant appealed on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive. She relied on the absence of previous supply convictions, her lack of any previous custodial sentence, and her addiction to drugs.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent of reducing the sentence. The concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of five years’ imprisonment.

2. The court accepted that the offending required a substantial immediate custodial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The judge had been entitled to increase the four-and-a-half-year starting point because of the quantities and range of drugs, the bulking agent used to make crack cocaine, and the cash found.

3. The error lay in the extent of the increase. The appellant had never previously received a custodial sentence and had not previously been convicted of drug supply. Her previous drug convictions reflected her own addiction. In the circumstances, those matters moderated the appropriate increase from the starting point.

4. Having resentenced the appellant, the court concluded that six years was manifestly excessive and that five years’ concurrent imprisonment was the proper sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentencing appeal to the extent stated and substituted concurrent sentences of five years’ imprisonment: [2024] EWCA Crim 51.

• Crown Court at Wood Green: On 15 June 2023, convicted the appellant of three Class A drug-possession-with-intent offences and possessing criminal property, and imposed concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment.