R v Leo Morris

Where a sentence for drug supply is founded on a material error in the quantity of drugs, the appellate court should quash it and resentence on the basis of all reliable and undisputed evidence of the quantity involved. Under the Drugs Guideline, the harm category must reflect that proved quantity and its position within the category range. The court should then apply the appropriate culpability starting point, adjust for aggravating and mitigating features, and give the proper reduction for a timely guilty plea.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Swindon Crown Court to two offences of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs. He had weighed and prepared crack cocaine and heroin for supply.

The sentencing judge treated the harm as Category 2 on the erroneous basis that the drugs equated to one kilogram. The prosecution later identified the error but the original court could not be reconstituted in time to correct it under section 385 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

The applicant sought leave to appeal out of time. The central issue was the sentence properly due when the undisputed communications showed involvement with about 750 grams of Class A drugs.

1. Appeal allowed. Time was extended and leave to appeal against sentence was granted. The 30-month concurrent sentences were founded on an erroneous assessment that the drug quantity was equivalent to one kilogram. They were therefore quashed.

2. The court accepted that correcting the calculation of 100 wraps did not confine the evidence to approximately 100 grams. The undisputed messages showed dealings in quantities amounting to about 750 grams over four days within the indictment period. The proper assessment was therefore Category 3 harm, towards the top of that category, with lesser-role culpability.

3. The applicable guideline starting point was three years’ custody, within a range of two to four and a half years. The applicant’s offending while on bail, the involvement of two Class A drugs, and the two-month period of offending justified an uplift to four years. His age at the beginning of the indictment period and mental health difficulties reduced the sentence to three years before credit for the guilty plea.

4. The appropriate sentence was 27 months’ detention in a young offender institution on each count, to run concurrently. The suspended sentence order remained undisturbed. The sentence was subject to the stated qualifying-curfew credit.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the concurrent 30-month sentences, and substituted concurrent sentences of 27 months’ detention in a young offender institution.
• Crown Court at Swindon: On 21 November 2024, imposed concurrent sentences of 30 months’ detention in a young offender institution for two Class A drug-supply offences.