R v Tommy Robinson
[2024] EWCA Crim 36
R v Oleksandr Hranatyr
28 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1684
Court of Appeal
A Ukrainian man got a two-year prison sentence for drug dealing. The appeals court thought the judge didn't properly consider all the facts (like the small amount of drugs and his good character). They reduced his sentence to 16 months but made it a suspended sentence – meaning he won't go to jail unless he commits further crimes.
Key Facts
- •Oleksandr Hranatyr, a Ukrainian national, pleaded guilty to possession of a Class A controlled drug with intent and possession of criminal property.
- •He was initially sentenced to two years' imprisonment (with a concurrent six-month sentence for possession of criminal property), with 83 days credit for time served.
- •The offences involved approximately seven grams of cocaine and £340 in cash.
- •Hranatyr's basis of plea indicated he was recruited for a single night of drug delivery work through a Facebook group, unaware of the larger supply chain.
- •He had no prior convictions and several character references supported his good character.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for drug offences, specifically considering the quantity of drugs and the defendant's role.
Sentencing Council Guideline for drug offences
Principles of mitigating factors in sentencing (e.g., lack of prior convictions, good character, remorse).
Case law and general sentencing principles
The Imposition Guideline, considering whether a custodial sentence should be suspended.
Sentencing Council Imposition Guideline
Outcomes
The original sentence was quashed.
The judge failed to adequately consider the quantity of drugs, mitigating factors, and the Imposition Guideline. The court found the original sentence too harsh.
A suspended sentence of 16 months' imprisonment was imposed.
This reflected a downward adjustment for the mitigating factors and the limited nature of the appellant's involvement. The court deemed suspension appropriate given the mitigating circumstances.
The six-month sentence for possession of criminal property was quashed.
The court considered this sentence inappropriate given the minimal amount of criminal property involved and its integral connection to the main drug offence.