R v Christopher Cartwright

On an appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal will intervene where the sentence is manifestly excessive, even though the assessment of aggravating and mitigating features is primarily for the sentencing judge. Previous convictions for comparable serious offending may justify a substantial uplift, but the uplift must reflect their current significance, including any substantial period without further offending. A lengthy delay between a guilty plea and sentence, where the offender is not responsible for the delay, is a significant mitigating feature and must be reflected in the eventual sentence. The court must assess the overall balance rather than treating aggravation or mitigation in isolation.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Lincoln to conspiracy to supply cocaine and was sentenced to 10 years and six months' imprisonment. The conspiracy involved a wider supply of 9.5 kilograms, but the appellant accepted responsibility for supplying two kilograms. He had previous convictions for possession of class A drugs with intent to supply, but had not offended further during the substantial period between his guilty plea and sentence.

He appealed on the grounds that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation, excessive weight had been given to his previous convictions, and the sentence was inconsistent with those imposed on co-defendants. The central issue was whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of 10 years and six months was quashed and a sentence of nine years and four months' imprisonment was substituted.

2. The weighing of aggravating and mitigating features is primarily a function of the sentencing judge. Appellate intervention remains justified where the final sentence is manifestly excessive. The relevant question was whether the balance struck in this case produced such a sentence.

3. The appellant's previous convictions for class A drug trafficking were serious and justified a substantial uplift from the 12-year sentence identified by reference to culpability and harm. Their age did not make them irrelevant, because they demonstrated a history of dealing in class A drugs. However, the substantial gap in offending reduced the weight that could properly be attached to them. An uplift of at least four years, amounting to one-third of the otherwise appropriate sentence, was too great in the circumstances.

4. The very substantial delay between the guilty plea and sentence, for which the appellant was not responsible, was by far the most significant mitigating feature. It should have been reflected in the eventual sentence, as it had been for the co-defendants. The court considered that the judge had either applied an excessive uplift for the previous convictions or underestimated the downward adjustment required for mitigation.

5. The appropriate sentence after weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors was 12 years and six months after trial. Applying 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea and rounding produced a sentence of nine years and four months.

• Crown Court at Lincoln: The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply cocaine and was sentenced to 10 years and six months' imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The sentence was quashed and nine years and four months' imprisonment was substituted.