Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Andre Jordan Bell v R

[2023] EWCA Crim 175
Bell was caught with a lot of drugs and got 15 months in jail. He said he wasn't selling them for profit, but the judge didn't believe him and the appeal court agreed. They also said he should go to jail, not get a suspended sentence, because he kept breaking the law.

Key Facts

  • Andre Jordan Bell pleaded guilty to possession of Class A (cocaine), possession with intent to supply Class B (cannabis), and possession of Class B (ketamine).
  • Police found 758.86 grams of cannabis, 11.24 grams of cocaine, and 6.99 grams of ketamine, along with scales, snap bags, and £625 cash.
  • Bell's phone contained messages suggesting drug dealing.
  • Bell claimed he used cannabis for medical reasons and purchased cocaine and ketamine for his birthday.
  • Bell had four previous convictions, including robbery and assault.
  • Bell's pre-sentence report indicated a medium risk of reoffending.
  • The sentencing judge imposed a 15-month sentence (12 months for the lead offence reduced by 25% for a guilty plea).
  • The judge considered the culpability category to be significant but did not hold a Newton hearing despite a dispute over the expectation of financial gain.

Legal Principles

A Newton hearing may be necessary to resolve disputes of fact affecting sentencing.

Blackstone’s Criminal Practice 2023, paras D20.8-20.11 and D20.15-D20.20; R v Underwood [2004] EWCA Crim 2256; R v Mula [2017] EWCA Crim 32.

The onus is on the defence to make any challenge to important facts in the prosecution case crystal clear to the sentencing judge.

AG’s References (Nos 3 and 4 of 1996) [1997] 1 Cr App R (S) 29.

When considering suspension of sentence, the court must address the factors set out in the imposition guideline.

Imposition Guideline

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The court found the 15-month sentence was not manifestly excessive and that immediate custody was the appropriate punishment.

Judge's decision not to hold a Newton hearing upheld.

The court found the appellant's claim of no expectation of financial gain to be implausible given the evidence.

Judge's refusal to suspend the sentence upheld.

The court considered the seriousness of the offending, the appellant's history, and new offences committed since the index offences.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.