R v Paul Michael Mount & Ors
[2024] EWCA Crim 461
R v Ajmer Singh
23 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 556
Court of Appeal
A man was caught with a huge amount of illegal drugs. He pleaded guilty, and the judge gave him a five-year sentence. The man tried to appeal the sentence, arguing it was too harsh, but the higher court agreed with the judge, saying the sentence was fair considering the amount of drugs and the man's prior offences.
Key Facts
- •Ajmer Singh pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing class B drugs (21,000 codeine/dihydrocodeine tablets) and 11 counts of possessing class C drugs (nearly 1.9 million tablets of various painkillers, sedatives, steroids, and designer drugs) with intent to supply.
- •The drugs were prescription drugs imported from abroad.
- •The estimated street value of the drugs ranged from £710,000 to £1.4 million.
- •Singh had prior convictions for drug offences, including a previous conviction for possessing a controlled class C drug with intent to supply and possessing a controlled class B drug with intent to supply resulting in an 18-month prison sentence.
- •Singh was 44 years old at sentencing.
- •The judge considered character references and information about Singh's wife's health but deemed the impact of imprisonment on family members of little significance at the most serious levels of criminality, citing R v Welsh [2014] EWCA Crim. 1027.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for drug trafficking offences involving large quantities of drugs should consider the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's culpability. The impact of imprisonment on family members is generally of little significance compared to the public interest in enforcing the criminal law.
R v Welsh [2014] EWCA Crim. 1027 and Sentencing Guidelines
Totality principle in sentencing: The overall sentence must be just and proportionate to the overall criminality.
Sentencing Guidelines
Credit for guilty pleas should be applied in sentencing.
Sentencing Guidelines
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
The Court found the seven-year sentence (before considering the guilty plea) to be justified given the scale of the offending, the applicant's leading role, and his previous convictions. The mitigating factors were deemed insufficient to warrant a reduction in the sentence.