R v Khumran Mohammed Taj
[2024] EWCA Crim 978
R v Charlie Birtchnell
16 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 830
Court of Appeal
A man was caught helping a teenager sell drugs. The judge gave him a 5-year sentence. The appeals court thought that was too harsh because of delays in the case and the man's attempts to improve his life. They reduced his sentence to 4 years.
Key Facts
- •Charlie Birtchnell (appellant) convicted of conspiracy to supply cocaine and heroin.
- •Involved in 'Dan line' County lines operation transporting a 16-year-old (RW) to sell drugs in Chard.
- •Appellant had extensive phone communication with the 'Dan line' and co-located with RW's phone on the day of travel to Chard.
- •Appellant had 19 previous convictions but none for drug trafficking.
- •Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment on each count concurrent.
- •Appeal based on excessive sentence, insufficient account of delay, and insufficient account of mitigation.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for County lines operations involving young people should consider the hallmark of professional crime and examine claims of lesser roles carefully.
Ajayi [2017] EWCA Crim 2011
Delay in prosecution may justify a sentence reduction if unreasonable, not the offender's fault, and has a detrimental effect. Not all delay meets these conditions.
Noor [2024] EWCA Crim 714
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The initial sentence of five years was deemed severe but not manifestly excessive considering the appellant's role and aggravating factors. However, insufficient account was taken of the delay in prosecution and other mitigating factors (lack of relevant previous convictions, impact of prison conditions, and impact on family).
Sentences quashed and substituted.
The court substituted the five-year sentences with concurrent sentences of four years' imprisonment to reflect the mitigating factors not adequately considered in the original sentencing.