Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R v Amaru Anderson

[2024] EWCA Crim 253
A man was given a long prison sentence for drug dealing. He appealed, saying his serious illness made the sentence unfair. The court said that illness can sometimes lead to a shorter sentence, but in this case, there wasn't enough proof that his illness made his sentence too harsh. His appeal was rejected.

Key Facts

  • Amaru Anderson pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to supply class A drugs (heroin and crack cocaine).
  • He was sentenced to 67 months for each count, to run concurrently.
  • The offences were committed before the amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020, which introduced 'exceptional circumstances' for departure from the seven-year minimum sentence.
  • Anderson had three prior convictions for class A drug trafficking.
  • He argued that the seven-year minimum sentence should be disapplied due to his ill health (systemic lupus erythematosus and secondary chronic kidney disease) and the length of time since his first offence.
  • The sentencing judge rejected this argument, stating there was no authority for ill-health to justify disapplying the minimum term.
  • The appeal was based on the judge's misdirection regarding the relevance of ill-health and the severity of Anderson's health conditions.

Legal Principles

For offences committed before 28 June 2022, a seven-year minimum sentence for class A drug trafficking must be imposed unless the court finds 'particular circumstances' that make it unjust.

Sentencing Act 2020, s.313(2)

An offender's serious medical condition may, in exceptional circumstances, justify a lesser sentence than would otherwise be appropriate, but this is not automatic.

R v Bernard [1997] 1 Crim App R (S) 135, R v W [2012] EWCA Crim 355, R v McMeekin [2018] EWCA Crim 2373, R v James [2011] EWCA Crim 2411

Outcomes

The appeal was dismissed.

While the Recorder erred in stating that ill-health could never be relevant, the court found insufficient evidence that Anderson's health condition made the minimum sentence unjust or manifestly excessive. The prison report did not support claims of significant hardship due to his health, and his behaviour in prison was inconsistent with claims of extreme fatigue.

The application for an extension of time was refused.

The application was substantially out of time due to a catalogue of errors by the applicant's solicitors. While the court would have granted the extension if the appeal had merit, the lack of arguable grounds led to its refusal.

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.