R v Hamzah Ali Hameed
[2023] EWCA Crim 1611
R v Richard Butler
14 August 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1030
Court of Appeal
A young man was caught selling drugs. He got a two-year prison sentence. He tried to appeal, hoping to get the sentence suspended (meaning he wouldn't go to jail right away). The appeal court said no, because selling drugs is serious and he needed to be punished, even though they considered his difficult past.
Key Facts
- •Richard Butler, a 24-year-old man of good character, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for five Class A drug offenses (psilocin, psilocybin, LSD, MDMA, cocaine), two Class B drug offenses (ketamine, cannabis), and one Class C drug offense (bromazolam), all with intent to supply.
- •The offenses occurred on August 26, 2022, when Butler was 22 years old.
- •Butler pleaded guilty on February 15, 2024.
- •The police found various drugs, £2,160 in cash, mobile phones, SIM cards, snap bags, and scales in Butler's possession and home.
- •Butler had a difficult upbringing, lacking parental support, and claimed to have been influenced by older acquaintances.
- •The sentencing judge (Recorder M Hunter) considered Butler's role as a street dealer (Category 3 of the Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline), his mitigation (good character, delay in bringing the case to court), and reduced the sentence from the starting point of four years and six months to three years before applying a guilty plea discount, resulting in a two-year sentence.
Legal Principles
The decision to suspend a sentence is for the sentencing judge, and the Court of Appeal will rarely interfere unless the decision is irrational or relevant factors were not considered.
Sentencing Council Guideline on Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences
Prison overcrowding is a factor that might be relevant to suspending a sentence in exceptional circumstances.
R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232
Outcomes
The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found that the Recorder appropriately considered Butler's mitigation and the seriousness of his crimes. While acknowledging the mitigating factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the offenses (supplying Class A drugs) and the need for deterrence justified the immediate custodial sentence.