R v Jaheim Omar Andre Thomas

When a sentencing guideline has already placed drug supply in a custodial institution in a higher harm category, the custodial setting cannot justify a second upward adjustment for the same feature. That is double counting. A separate location, such as a court building, may be a significant aggravating factor and may justify an adjustment above the category range, but the sentence must remain anchored to the offender’s actual role. Where the offence is unrelated to offences for which the offender is already serving sentence, a consecutive sentence with little reduction for totality may be appropriate. The appeal was allowed in part and a shorter consecutive sentence was substituted.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis with intent to supply it after taking the drug into a court building during criminal proceedings. The Crown Court at Inner London imposed 12 months’ detention, consecutive to a sentence of 19 years for attempted murder and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. The appellant appealed, arguing that the sentencing judge had adopted an unjustified four-year starting point and had failed to apply the totality principle. The central issues were the proper guideline categorisation, whether the prison context had been counted twice, the significance of the court location, and whether a consecutive sentence was justified.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the 12-month sentence was quashed. The Court substituted 16 weeks’ detention in a young offender institution, to be served consecutively to the existing 19-year sentence.
2. Guideline assessment. The offence properly fell within category 3 harm because it involved supplying drugs in a custodial institution. The appellant’s culpability was properly assessed as a lesser role because he had performed a specific function under direction and had acted under pressure.
3. Double counting. Having taken the prison context into account in categorising harm, the sentencing judge erred by making a further upward adjustment to four years for supplying drugs into prison. That was double counting. The Court applied R v O'Reilly [2023] EWCA Crim 1615; [2024] 1 Cr App R(S) 50 at [16–19].
4. Court location. The offence’s commission in a court building, and in the dock while the appellant was a defendant, was a separate and very significant aggravating factor. It justified an upward adjustment above the category range. The Court applied the principle stated in R v Arshad [2025] EWCA Crim 1456 at [10], concerning the seriousness of offending in such a location.
5. The four-year starting point was nevertheless manifestly excessive because it corresponded to a leading role. The appropriate notional sentence before reductions was 30 weeks. A 20 per cent reduction for the guilty plea produced 24 weeks, which was reduced to 16 weeks having regard to the appellant’s age.
6. Totality and concurrency. The drug offence arose from facts unrelated to the Snaresbrook offences. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to impose a consecutive sentence with little reduction for totality. Given the court location, the consecutive order was correct.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2026] EWCA Crim 931 : allowed the appeal to the extent stated, quashed the 12-month sentence and substituted 16 weeks’ detention, consecutive to the existing 19-year sentence.
• Crown Court at Inner London: HHJ Richards imposed 12 months’ detention, consecutive to the sentence already being served.