R v Przemyslaw Libert
[2023] EWCA Crim 1556
R v Harry Culleton
12 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1128
Court of Appeal
A man was sentenced to over four years in prison for drug dealing. He appealed, arguing the sentences should have run at the same time, not one after the other. The court said the original sentence was fair, but corrected some errors in the paperwork.
Key Facts
- •Harry Culleton pleaded guilty to possessing Class A (cocaine) and Class B (cannabis) drugs with intent, and possessing an offensive weapon.
- •Police found 92.14 grams of cocaine, 1.69 kilograms of cannabis, £8,810 cash, two fake Rolex watches, drug ledgers, and a baton.
- •Culleton was 22 at the time of the offense and had one prior conviction for possessing Class B drugs.
- •He was sentenced to 40 months for the Class A drug offense, 9 months consecutive for the Class B drug offense, and 1 month concurrent for the weapon.
- •He appealed against the sentence, primarily arguing that the sentences should have run concurrently.
Legal Principles
Totality principle in sentencing: The overall sentence should reflect all offending behavior, harm, culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors, and be just and proportionate.
Sentencing remarks and Discussion section (paragraphs 9, 11, 12)
Section 33 of the Sentencing Act 2020 regarding pre-sentence reports.
Paragraph 5
Section 325 of the Sentencing Code regarding credit for time spent on qualifying curfew.
Paragraph 13
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that while consecutive sentences weren't wrong in principle, the overall sentence wasn't manifestly excessive after considering totality and mitigation. The aggravating factors (quantity of drugs, significant role, weapon possession) outweighed the mitigating factors (youth, good character).
Correction of Crown Court record sheet: Credit for time spent on curfew to be rectified.
The judge didn't specify the number of days to be credited for the curfew in open court, as required by section 325 of the Sentencing Code. The court clarified the correct calculation.
Correction of surcharge amount.
The surcharge amount recorded on the Crown Court record sheet was incorrect due to an administrative error. The court directed that the surcharge be recorded as stated by the judge.