R v Richard Butler
[2024] EWCA Crim 1030
R v Hamzah Ali Hameed
14 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1611
Court of Appeal
A young man was jailed for selling drugs. His lawyer argued the sentence was too harsh and the judge didn't understand his difficult life. The appeal court disagreed, saying the crime was serious enough to warrant prison, even considering his background.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (25 years old) pleaded guilty to possession of Class A drugs (crack cocaine and heroin) with intent to supply.
- •Police found 193 wraps of drugs, three phones, and £100 cash on appellant.
- •A further four wraps, a tick list, scales, and a meat fork were found at appellant's home.
- •Messages on phones indicated drug supply.
- •Appellant had no prior convictions, only a 2017 caution for possessing an offensive weapon.
- •Pre-sentence report detailed troubled background, including mother's death and serious assault.
- •Report suggested grooming and exploitation, but also indicated appellant wasn't concerned about repayment from those he worked for.
- •Report noted potential Huntingdon's disease diagnosis and learning difficulties (ADHD, dyslexia).
- •Judge sentenced appellant to two years' imprisonment after a one-third reduction for early guilty plea.
- •Post-sentence, probation officer expressed concern that judge misunderstood the report.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for Class A drug supply.
Sentencing Council guideline
Considerations for suspending sentences, including seriousness of offense and mitigating factors.
Sentencing Council guideline and case law
Standard of review for appeals against sentence: whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
Implied from the appeal process
Guidance on the approach to imposing suspended sentences in substitution for short custodial sentences in situations of prison overpopulation.
R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the sentence (two years' imprisonment) was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the offenses and the mitigating factors considered by the judge. The judge's alleged misunderstanding of the pre-sentence report was deemed inconsequential.