Key Facts
- •Henry Hendron, a 42-year-old barrister, pleaded guilty to three counts of intentionally encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence (contrary to section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007) and one count of possession of a Class A drug (contrary to section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971).
- •Hendron encouraged two prisoners he represented to supply him with drugs via text messages.
- •The offences involved class A drugs (crystal methamphetamine) and a class C drug (gamma-butyrolactone).
- •Hendron had previous convictions for drug-related offences and driving offences.
- •He was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment.
Legal Principles
In sentencing for offences under section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, the sentencing judge should refer to the guideline for the crime encouraged and make adjustments based on the facts.
This court's decisions
The precise factual matrix must govern the use of the relevant guideline; it's a starting point, not necessarily the destination.
This court's judgment
The criminal conduct encouraged or assisted is the core of the crime and should drive the sentence, subject to aggravating and mitigating factors.
This court's judgment
General Sentencing Council guidelines on culpability and harm caused are important.
This court's judgment
The decision to prosecute for a particular crime is for the Crown Prosecution Service, not the court.
This court's judgment
Outcomes
The application for an eight-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence was granted.
The appellant experienced difficulties at the outset of his custody.
Leave to appeal against sentence was granted on grounds 1 and 2 (wrong sentencing guidelines and manifestly excessive sentence), but refused on grounds 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Grounds 3, 4, 5, and 6 were deemed to lack merit.
The appeal against sentence was dismissed.
The 14-month sentence was not manifestly excessive given the serious aggravating factors (the appellant's professional status and the nature of the offences), even though the court considered the approach to sentencing could have been slightly different.