R v James Robert Morphew

In a sentencing appeal, disparity with co-defendants does not require reduction of an otherwise appropriate sentence where their roles differ and their sentences reflect guilty-plea discounts. Leniency shown to a co-defendant is not a proper basis for reducing the appellant’s sentence. A sentencing judge may treat substantial delay, where not attributable to the offender, as mitigation, but an allowance for that delay does not make a sentence excessive. A sentence within the applicable guideline category and range will not be quashed merely because it is severe if aggravating features outweigh mitigation. It is also permissible to impose a concurrent sentence for additional offending while increasing the principal sentence to reflect it.

After a trial in the Crown Court at Maidstone, the appellant was convicted of conspiring to supply cocaine and cannabis. He received nine years’ imprisonment on the cocaine count, with a concurrent sentence of 16 months on the cannabis count. He appealed with leave, arguing that the sentencing judge had insufficiently reflected the lengthy delay before final trial, that the sentence was unfairly disparate from the 40-month sentences imposed on two co-defendants, and that the sentence had been structured incorrectly. The complaint about sentence structure was not pursued. The central issues were whether the delay and co-defendant sentences required a reduction, and whether the resulting sentence was excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The nine-year sentence was severe but was not excessive and fell within the applicable guideline range.
2. The delay between arrest and final trial was regrettably long and was not attributable to the appellant. The sentencing judge had expressly treated it as mitigation. The first period on bail, subject to a qualifying curfew, had also been reflected by a reduction of 257 days in custody. There was no error in the approach to delay.
3. The disparity between the appellant’s sentence and the 40-month sentences imposed on the co-defendants did not show an error in the administration of justice. The co-defendants had lesser roles and had received substantial reductions for early guilty pleas. Applying the principle recognised in R v Saliuka [2014] EWCA Crim 1907, leniency afforded to a co-defendant could not reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence for the appellant.
4. There was no criticism of the sentence structure. It was permissible to impose a concurrent sentence on the second count and to increase the sentence on the first count to reflect the additional offending.
5. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offending in category 2 for a significant role, with a starting point of eight years and a range up to ten years. She was entitled to conclude that the aggravating features outweighed the mitigation. The final sentence therefore fell within the guideline range and could not be characterised as excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Maidstone: Following conviction after trial, the appellant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment on count 1, with a concurrent sentence of 16 months on count 2.