[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Fletcher, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 1374 (08 June 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2018/1374.html Cite as: [2018] EWCA Crim 1374

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		8 June 2018

1. MR JUSTICE GOOSE: On 22 January 2018, the appellant, Christopher Fletcher, who is aged 40, was sentenced in the Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent to imprisonment for 8 years and 2 months. He had pleaded guilty to drugs offences on two indictments. On the first indictment, T20160268, the appellant pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled drug of class A with intent, crack cocaine, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, being count 1; and of a similar offence in relation to heroin, being count 2. On the second indictment, T20170452, the appellant pleaded guilty to a further offence of possession of a controlled drug of class A with intent, heroin, also contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
2. He was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment on each of the offences with those offences on the first indictment running concurrently with each other but consecutive to the offence on the second indictment. In addition, the appellant was sentenced after his plea to failing to surrender to custody, for which he received a consecutive sentence of 2 months' imprisonment, making 8 years and 2 months in all.
3. The appellant appeals with leave from the single judge upon grounds that the total sentence was manifestly excessive because the appellant was a drug addict whose supply of drugs was in order to fund his own habit and to buy alcohol for himself. Secondly, the nature and extent of the dealing was such that despite the aggravating features, the starting point for sentence should have been at a lower range. Thirdly, insufficient account was given to the principle of totality when making the sentences consecutive. No criticism is made of the consecutive sentence for the failing to surrender to custody offence.
4. The facts of these offences can be started shortly. On 16 March 2016, the appellant was arrested in a public house in Burselm, Stoke-on Trent and found to be in possession of 3.05 grams of crack cocaine with a street value of £320 and 18.7 grams of heroin with a street value of £1,060. He was also in possession of £495 in cash.
5. After his arrest, he was granted bail to attend court for his trial in November 2016 but failed to attend and remained at large for 13 months.
6. On 20 December 2017, the police attended at an address in Bank Street, Rookery to execute a search warrant. There they found the appellant in the rear bedroom. He was in possession of 21 grams of heroin with a street value of £2,100, together with measuring scales and dealer bags.
7. The appellant has 12 previous convictions for 35 offences, which include a conviction for possession of a controlled drug of class A with intent to supply on 24 February 2012 for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for 39 months.
8. In sentencing the appellant, His Honour Judge Glenn, the Honorary Recorder of Stoke-on-Trent, accepted the appellant's basis of plea in relation to the first indictment, namely that he had stolen the drugs and cash from his own drugs supplier, but that he admitted that he was to supply some of the drugs to others. The judge correctly found that such a basis offered little by way the mitigation. The appellant was sentenced on the basis that he was a street dealer and that he had played a significant role in the offences because he was motivated by financial or other advantage.
9. The guideline for supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug of class A under the drugs offences definitive guideline provided a starting point for these offences of 4 years and 6 months' custody, with a sentencing range of 3 years 6 months to 7 years.
10. The judge identified the appellant's previous conviction for a similar offence as being a seriously aggravating factor of the seriousness of these offences. Further, given that the second indictment comprised a further offence while on bail, the judge imposed consecutive sentencing between the two indictments.
11. A discount for pleading guilty was applied of 10 per cent in respect of the first indictment, when the appellant had failed to surrender for trial but pleaded guilty after his further arrest; and 25 per cent in respect of the second indictment.
12. The sentence for each of the two counts on the first indictment was 5 years' imprisonment reduced to four and a half years with a discount for pleading guilty of 10 per cent. On the second indictment, committed when the appellant was not only on bail but also had absconded and avoided his trial, the sentence was 6 years' imprisonment reduced to four and a half years for the plea discount of 25 per cent. Both sentences were then reduced to 4 years' imprisonment each to reflect the totality principle, discounting the consecutive total sentence by one year.
13. On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that the judge should, despite the aggravating features of the offences, have adopted a starting point at a lower range than he did.
14. However, we are satisfied that the judge correctly identified the culpability and the harm of these offences within the guideline so as to reach the appropriate starting point for class A drugs with intent to supply. There were significant aggravating features, which required an upward adjustment from the starting point, and in circumstances in which the appellant was on bail when he committed the offence in the second indictment, consecutive sentencing was justified.
15. It is further argued on behalf of the appellant that there should have been a greater reduction in sentence when applying the totality principle. The judge obviously took into account the principle when expressly reducing the sentences on each indictment by 6 months, which when making those sentences consecutive applied a 1 year discount to the total sentence. Such a discount was entirely within the judicial discretion of the judge when imposing sentence.
16. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant with care, we are not persuaded that the sentence of 8 years and 2 months' imprisonment for this appellant's offending was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Having committed a similar offence in 2012 for which he received a significant prison sentence, this further offending, some of which while being on bail, cannot be criticised.
17. In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.