R v Babak Rasouli
[2023] EWCA Crim 229
R v Melik Yalcin
16 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1313
Court of Appeal
A man was sentenced to 12 years in prison for serious drug dealing. He appealed, arguing he should have gotten a bigger discount for pleading guilty and that the judge didn't consider his mental health enough. The court said the discount was fair and the judge considered his mental health appropriately, so the sentence stood.
Key Facts
- •Melik Yalcin pleaded guilty to four drug offences: possessing Class A (cocaine) and Class B (cannabis) drugs with intent to supply, and being concerned in supplying Class A and Class B drugs.
- •He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment (12 years for cocaine offences concurrent with 5 years for cannabis offences).
- •The police found significant quantities of cocaine and cannabis, cash, and drug paraphernalia during searches of his car and home.
- •Incriminating messages on his phones indicated his involvement in the supply of cocaine and cannabis on a commercial scale.
- •The judge considered Count 4 (being concerned in supplying Class A drugs) as the lead sentence, estimating his involvement in 8-9kg of cocaine.
- •The Applicant argued the sentence was excessive, based on insufficient discount for his guilty plea and inadequate consideration of mitigating factors (mental health conditions).
Legal Principles
Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea according to Section 73 of the Sentencing Code and the Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline.
Sentencing Code, Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline on “Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea”
The appropriate level of discount for a guilty plea depends on the stage of proceedings at which the plea was entered and the circumstances of the case (R v Plaku [2021] EWCA Crim 568).
R v Plaku [2021] EWCA Crim 568
Mitigating factors, such as mental health conditions, are considered in sentencing but their impact on sentence length is limited, particularly regarding the impact of custody.
Sentencing Guideline on “Sentencing offenders with mental disorders”
Outcomes
The appeal was refused.
The court found no error in the judge's approach to the guilty plea discount (20% instead of 25%) given the chronology of the proceedings and the circumstances. The judge appropriately considered the mitigating factors, including the Applicant's mental health.