R v Mark Hobbs & Anor
[2023] EWCA Crim 938
R v David Roberts & Ors
1 November 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1397
Court of Appeal
Three people were convicted of drug crimes. The government thought their sentences were too light, but the appeal court mostly agreed with the judge's decisions. One person got a suspended sentence, and the court decided to leave that as it was.
Key Facts
- •Three offenders (David Roberts, Max Roberts, George Barnes) convicted of drugs conspiracy charges following a 28-day trial.
- •David and Max Roberts involved in a large-scale cocaine supply operation over several years.
- •George Barnes involved in street dealing for a shorter period, linked to Max Roberts.
- •Sentences: David Roberts – 9 years; Max Roberts – 9 years; George Barnes – 2 years suspended.
- •Attorney General's reference under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 challenging sentences as unduly lenient.
Legal Principles
In assessing culpability, the sentencing judge should weigh all factors to determine the offender's role. Where characteristics fall under different role categories, the court balances these to reach a fair assessment.
Sentencing Council guideline on supply of controlled drugs
A challenge to a sentencing judge's categorisation of an offender's role on a reference by the Law Officers should only be upheld if the court is satisfied the judge's categorisation was plainly wrong.
Court of Appeal
Outcomes
Leave to refer David and Max Roberts' sentences refused.
The Court of Appeal found the judge's categorisation of their roles (significant, not leading) was not plainly wrong, considering the nuances of their involvement over time.
Leave to refer George Barnes' sentence granted, but sentence upheld.
While the Court agreed the judge might have erred in reducing the sentence below the guideline starting point, they considered overturning the suspended sentence too drastic given Barnes' youth, immaturity, good character, and the time elapsed since the offences.