British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish High Court of Justiciary Decisons >> Hopkins v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_42 (15 March 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2005/HCJAC_42.html
Cite as: [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_42, [2005] HCJAC 42
[New search] [Help]
Hopkins v. Her Majesty's Advocate [2005] ScotHC HCJAC_42 (15 March 2005)
|
APPEAL COURT, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY |
|
|
Lord Macfadyen Sheriff Principal E.F. Bowen, Q.C.
|
[2005HCJAC42] Appeal No: XC929/04 OPINION OF THE COURT delivered by LORD MACFADYEN in NOTE OF APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE by JOHN HOPKINS Appellant; against HER MAJESTY'S ADVOCATE Respondent: _______ |
Appellant: Brown; Balfour & Manson
Respondent:
Logan, A.D.; Crown Agent15 March 2005
[1] The appellant pled guilty to two charges of contravening section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The first charge related to being concerned in the supplying of diamorphine. The second charge related to being concerned in the supplying of cocaine. [2] The sheriff sentenced the appellant to a cumulo period of two years and eight months imprisonment, to be served consecutively to a sentence of thirty months imprisonment which the appellant was serving at the date of sentence. The sheriff indicated that in selecting that sentence he allowed a discount of four months to reflect the appellant's having pled guilty. [3] In the appeal it was recognised that a custodial sentence was appropriate. Although the appellant's role had been confined to that of courier, and he undertook that role in order to secure partial remission of his own drug-related debts, the quantity of drugs had been substantial, namely 28.74 grams of cocaine and 54.83 grams of cocaine. The total value of the drugs was £9830. [4] The only point argued by Mr Brown on behalf of the appellant was that the discount allowed by the sheriff on account of the appellant's having pled guilty was insufficient in the particular circumstances of the case. The discount of four months represented only one-ninth of the gross sentence of three years which the sheriff had taken as his starting point. [5] The offences were committed in June 2003. At that time, the appellant was co-operative with the police. He was not remanded in custody. Thereafter, in late 2003, he was sentenced in England to 30 months imprisonment in respect of an offence of dishonesty (his previous convictions were also mostly of that nature). While in prison in England, the appellant contacted his solicitors with regard to the offences which are the subject of this appeal. On his instructions, his solicitors approached the procurator fiscal, and intimated his willingness to plead guilty. He was therefore indicted, and pled guilty at the first diet. These circumstances by themselves, it was submitted, justified a more substantial discount than the sheriff had allowed. [6] Mr Brown founded on one further aspect of the appellant's position. In respect of the English sentence of 30 months, he was a short-term prisoner. Had the sheriff's sentence been imposed when he was not the subject of another sentence, he would in respect of that sentence too have been a short-term prisoner. By offering to plead guilty when he did, the appellant had brought about a state of affairs that resulted in his becoming a long-term prisoner, because the two sentences fell to be aggregated. As a result, he had to serve a larger proportion of the aggregated sentences than he would have had to serve if the two sentences had been separate from each other. He could, thus, to his own advantage, have refrained from taking any initiative in the present case, in the hope of serving the English sentence before being sentenced in the present case, and thereby preserving his status as a short-term prisoner in each case. The fact that he had taken the initiative in offering the pleas which were accepted in the present case, without regard to the potential for prejudice to his own position in regard to the length of time which he required to serve in prison, was, Mr Brown submitted, a further consideration pointing to the appropriateness of a more substantial discount. [7] In our opinion the submissions made by Mr Brown on the appellant's behalf are well-founded. The circumstances outlined in paragraphs [5] and [6] above in our opinion merit a discount of one third. We shall therefore allow the appeal, quash the sentence of two years and eight months and substitute a sentence of two years. The sentence in this case will, of course, remain consecutive to the English sentence.