BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Harvey, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 406 (15 March 2023)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2023/406.html
Cite as: [2023] EWCA Crim 406
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice

Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EWCA Crim 406
CASE NO 202203599/A4

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
15 March 2023

B e f o r e :

LADY JUSTICE CARR DBE
MR JUSTICE JEREMY BAKER
HIS HONOUR JUDGE TIMOTHY SPENCER KC
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
____________________

REX
v
MICHAEL HARVEY

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

MISS L SPADA appeared on behalf of the Appellant
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
 ____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    LADY JUSTICE CARR:

    Introduction

  1. The appellant, now 52 years old, pleaded guilty on 4 May 2022 to possession of a class A drug (cocaine), contrary to section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was sentenced on 10 November 2022 by Ms Recorder Presland ("the judge") to four weeks' imprisonment. A victim surcharge, forfeiture and destruction orders were made and 109 days were ordered to count towards the sentence (pursuant to section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020).

  2. This is his appeal against sentence, for which purpose he has had the benefit of representation by Ms Spada.

    3. The facts

  3. In the early morning of 22 March 2022 a warrant under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was executed on an address and entry gained. The appellant was found inside the premises, which did not belong to him, with a small amount (0.656 kilograms) of crack cocaine near him. He admitted that the drug belonged to him and claimed that it was worth around £5.

  4. In interview he provided a prepared statement to the effect that the drugs were for his own personal use and that the cash that the police had seized was his benefit money.

  5. The appellant was placed on bail subject to a qualifying curfew condition (from 9.00 pm to 6.00 am), and an electronic monitoring condition (both as defined in section 326(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020). By the time of sentence he had been subject to those conditions for 219 days.

    6. The sentence

  6. The appellant had 48 previous convictions for 125 offences spanning between July 1985 and March 2022, including for burglary, theft and robbery, driving offences and assault. He also had convictions for seven drug offences, the most recent in 2018.

  7. The judge sentenced the appellant without a pre-sentence report and we agree that one was unnecessary. She afforded him a full one-third credit for his guilty plea. She stated that, following trial, because of the appellant's offending record, she would have imposed a custodial sentence of six weeks. After credit for guilty plea the term would be one of four weeks' custody. Accordingly she sentenced the appellant to a term of four weeks' imprisonment. She emphasised, however, that that would be "time served", the appellant having already served the equivalent of 109 days in custody.

    8. Grounds of appeal

  8. Ms Spada submits that, given the small quantity and value of drugs recovered, coupled with the appellant's guilty plea, the sentence was simply too high. The offending was low-level and the custody threshold was not passed. Even if it was passed, a shorter term of imprisonment should have been imposed. She emphasises in particular the mitigation available to the appellant, not only in terms of the quantity and value of drugs involved, but also the steps being taken by the appellant to address his drug addiction. He had been off drugs for some five months, seeking assistance from the Harbour Project in Lambeth.

    9. Discussion

  9. As is common ground, the relevant starting point under the Sentencing Council Guideline for Drug Offences was a Band C fine, with a range of a Band A fine up to 51 weeks' custody. Despite the small quantity and low value of the drugs in question, taking into account the appellant's offending record as a whole, the judge was fully entitled to reach the conclusion i) that the custodial threshold was passed and ii) that a term of six weeks' custody before credit for guilty plea was justified. It was well within the relevant sentencing range, as set out above.

  10. The judge reached that conclusion independently of the fact that the appellant had served time on qualifying curfew. The appellant's offending record, as we have indicated, included not only multiple drug offending but also other serious offending, including for offences of dishonesty. Taken in context and as a whole, we do not consider that there is any legitimate criticism to be made of the ultimate outcome.

  11. For these reasons we dismiss the appeal.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010