R v Armaan Khan
[2024] EWCA Crim 809
R v Jason Heath
19 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 970
Court of Appeal
A man was given a long prison sentence for selling drugs. The appeal court thought the sentence was too harsh, because the judge didn't properly consider that he was selling to other addicts to feed his own habit and his previous crimes were quite old. The appeal court reduced his sentence.
Key Facts
- •Jason Heath (50) pleaded guilty to two counts of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs (crack cocaine and heroin) and two counts of possession with intent to supply class A drugs.
- •Offenses involved street dealing, partly for profit and partly to fund his addiction.
- •Offenses occurred over several weeks, including while on bail.
- •Police found drugs, cash, scales, and drug-related mobile phone evidence.
- •Heath had 47 previous convictions, including 24 drug offences, but most recent Class A drug offense was in 2007.
- •Heath claimed drug supply was to fund his addiction and supply to already addicted friends.
- •Recorder Clegg KC sentenced Heath to 7 years and 8 months imprisonment.
Legal Principles
Totality Principle in Sentencing
Sentencing Guidelines
Proportionality in Sentencing
Implicit in Sentencing Guidelines
Consideration of mitigating factors in sentencing.
Implicit in Sentencing Guidelines
Outcomes
Appeal allowed. Original sentence quashed.
The Court of Appeal found the original sentence of 7 years and 8 months to be manifestly excessive and disproportionate, failing to give proper effect to the totality principle. Mitigating factors were not adequately considered.
New sentence imposed: 6 years and 2 months imprisonment.
The Court of Appeal calculated a new sentence taking into account mitigating factors and applying the totality principle properly.