R v Samuel Black
[2024] EWCA Crim 1225
R v David Glover
22 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1347
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of serious drug and weapons crimes and sentenced to over 23 years in prison. He appealed the sentence, but the appeals court agreed with the original judge, saying the sentence was fair given the amount of drugs involved and the dangerous weapons he possessed. The court also considered his lies during the trial.
Key Facts
- •David Glover pleaded guilty to seven offences related to Class A cocaine, Class B cannabis, and firearms.
- •He was acquitted of four other counts.
- •He received a total sentence of 23 years and 8 months' imprisonment.
- •The sentence included 18 years and 8 months for cocaine supply, 5 years consecutively for possessing prohibited weapons, and concurrent sentences for other drug and property offences.
- •The judge found Glover played a leading role in a large-scale cocaine operation, selling approximately 4 kilograms of cocaine per week.
- •£750,000 in cash, proceeds of crime, was found at his property.
- •He possessed at least four prohibited firearms, two loaded.
- •Glover's lies during a Newton hearing resulted in a reduced discount for his guilty plea.
- •The judge considered various aggravating factors, including the high purity of the cocaine, proximity to the importation source, and attempts to conceal evidence.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for Class A drug supply, considering quantity and role.
Sentencing Guideline category 1A
Totality principle in sentencing.
Case law (implicitly cited throughout)
Reduction for guilty pleas, considering mitigating and aggravating factors.
R v Underwood [2004] EWCA Crim 2056
Sentencing for firearms offences under section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968.
Firearms Act 1968, section 5(1)(aba)
Test for manifestly excessive sentences: would right-thinking members of the public consider the administration of justice has gone wrong?
Grounds of appeal
Outcomes
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
The judge's sentencing decisions were justified considering the scale of the offending, the aggravating factors, and the application of relevant legal principles and guidelines. The court found no manifest excessiveness.