R v Patryk Fornalski

For an offence of knowingly permitting premises to be used for drug supply or production, a sentencing judge may infer an expectation of substantial financial gain from the supported circumstances, despite a claimed cash-rent arrangement. A lead offence involving Class A drugs may properly receive an uplift where related offending includes large-scale Class B drug production, subject to totality and concurrent terms. A sentence within the applicable range will not be varied unless it is manifestly excessive. Under the guilty-plea guideline, credit for a plea to a lesser or different alternative offence depends on the stage at which an unequivocal indication was made. Where the alternative was already permissible on the indictment, there is no such indication until the plea is entered.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Leeds to one count of knowingly permitting premises to be used for the supply of Class A drugs and two counts of knowingly permitting premises to be used for the production of Class B drugs, contrary to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The offences concerned MDMA, amphetamine and cannabis with a total street value exceeding £26,000.

The judge imposed a total sentence of three years’ imprisonment, treating the Class A offence as the lead count. The appellant appealed with leave of the single judge. He contended that the starting point was too high and that he should have received more than 10 per cent credit for his guilty pleas to alternative counts added on the day of trial.

1. Appeal dismissed. The overall sentence of three years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the offending as high culpability and category 1 harm. There was no basis of plea. The asserted cash rent was unverified, and the defence case indicated attendance at the property more frequently than the appellant’s claimed monthly collection of rent. Those matters entitled the judge to infer that he expected significant financial reward and knew that the premises were being used primarily for substantial drug dealing.

3. The Class A offence was properly selected as the lead offence. The production of substantial quantities of Class B drugs increased the harm and required an uplift from the relevant starting point. Concurrent sentences for the remaining counts were permissible. Although 40 months’ imprisonment after trial would have been stern, it was within the permissible range and properly reflected the criminality before reduction for plea and totality.

4. The 10 per cent reduction for plea was unobjectionable. Paragraph F3 of the Overarching Guideline on Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea required an unequivocal prior indication of a plea to the lesser or different offence. The appellant gave none at Better Case Management or in his Defence Statement, which denied involvement. Since the alternatives were permissible on the original indictment, an indication was not unequivocal until the pleas were entered on the day of trial.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Sentence appeal dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 894.
• Crown Court at Leeds: The appellant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to offences contrary to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.