R v David Roberts & Ors
[2024] EWCA Crim 1397
R v Tunc Ahmet & Anor
25 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 102
Court of Appeal
Two men were convicted of drug dealing. The government thought their sentences were too light, but the Court of Appeal disagreed, saying the judge who heard the case made a fair decision. There was also a discussion about whether one of the men's name should be kept secret due to past human trafficking, but the Court decided his name should be public.
Key Facts
- •Attorney General's reference under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 regarding unduly lenient sentences.
- •Tunc Ahmet (31) and Jordan Gibbons (30) convicted of conspiracy to supply Class A and B drugs.
- •Ahmet received 7 years 8 months imprisonment; Gibbons received 6 years 6 months imprisonment.
- •Ahmet had 13 previous convictions; Gibbons had one previous conviction.
- •The conspiracy involved significant quantities of Class A and B drugs, distributed through deal lines.
- •The trial judge considered the roles of each defendant, mitigation (including Ahmet's history of trafficking and PTSD), and the Sentencing Council Guidelines.
- •The Attorney General argued the sentences were unduly lenient due to the defendants' roles, drug quantities, and other offenses.
- •The Court of Appeal considered the roles, drug amounts, and other offenses but ultimately dismissed the reference.
- •A subsequent issue arose regarding the anonymisation of Ahmet's name due to his history of being trafficked. The court ultimately decided against anonymisation.
Legal Principles
A sentence is unduly lenient if it falls outside the range a judge could reasonably consider appropriate, considering all relevant factors. Sentencing is an art, not a science; the trial judge is best placed to assess competing considerations.
Attorney-General’s Reference No 4 of 1989
In separate criminal proceedings against the alleged victim of an offence under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, the alleged victim does not have the benefit of anonymity in a report of those separate criminal proceedings.
R v Beale [2017] EWCA Crim 1012 and R v Musharraf [2022] EWCA Crim 678
The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies to offences under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, section 2(1)(db)
Outcomes
Leave granted for the reference, but the reference was ultimately dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found the sentences to be lenient but not unduly lenient. They considered the judge's assessment of roles, mitigation, and drug quantities, concluding that while they might have imposed different sentences, the trial judge's decision was not unreasonable.
No anonymisation of Mr Ahmet's name.
While Mr. Ahmet alleged human trafficking, Section 1(4) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 permits reporting of criminal proceedings against him, and the judge found no evidence of duress.