BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

London WC2

Tuesday 27th October 1998

B E F O R E :

THE VICE PRESIDENT

(LORD JUSTICE ROSE)

MR JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER

and

MR JUSTICE HUGHES

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

R E G I N A

- v -

MARCEL LAUDER

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of

Smith Bernal Reporting Limited

180 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2HD

Tel No: 0171 421 4040 Fax No: 0171 831 8838

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

MR M GUTHRIE appeared on behalf of the Appellant

- - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

( As Approved by the Court )

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Crown Copyright

Tuesday 27th October 1998

MR JUSTICE HUGHES: On 14th May 1998, in the Crown Court at Manchester, this applicant having pleaded guilty to two indictments, was sentenced to a total of 8 years' imprisonment. He renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence, leave having been refused by the Single Judge.

On the first indictment the applicant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and driving whilst disqualified. He had been disqualified (not for the first time) in August 1997 for 2 years. Two months later, on 7th October 1997, he was seen driving a car, which in due course he admitted was his. When a marked police vehicle came up behind him, he drove off at speed to escape. It was mid afternoon, in a built up area. He left the road and drove at speed across a grassed area and a paved pedestrian area outside a community centre. Pedestrians had to scatter from his path. He collided with concrete bollards and successfully ran off, evading capture. From what he later said, it was clear that it was not an isolated incident of using a car despite being disqualified. He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and driving whilst disqualified.

The second indictment concerned dangerous drugs. Seven weeks after the driving offences, the applicant was arrested, following the execution of a drugs search warrant at a flat in Sale, which he used, but which was not his home.

The applicant aimed a punch at the first police constable to enter and leapt through a closed first floor window in an attempt to escape. He was, however, detained by other police constables, prudently stationed outside with a dog.

On the ground, near where he fell, were found five single deals of crack cocaine and seven of heroin, worth about £20 apiece in a street sale. The applicant was found to have car keys on him. In the boot of a car which was parked nearby, not the same car as used in the previous incident, were found larger quantities of the same two drugs. The total of them was 3.34 grammes of crack cocaine, at 93 percent purity, with a street value of approximately £1,300, and 6.89 grammes of heroin, at 20 percent purity, with a street value of about £700.

In interview, the applicant made contradictory statements about the drugs on the ground but concluded by denying that both they and the drugs in his car were anything to do with him. It was not until the day of the trial that he admitted two counts of being concerned in the supply of those drugs. However, he made no bones about the fact he was a street dealer, in both substances, and that he had been for approximately 2 years, so far as heroin was concerned, and for about 18 months, in the case of cocaine. He admitted trading at a level which produced profits of the order of £100 per day. Those admissions were reflected in two further counts of supplying, respectively cocaine and heroin, expressed to cover a 2 year period. The applicant pleaded guilty. He was sentenced in this way: upon the two principal counts of supplying, 8 years for each concurrent; for the two counts of being concerned in the supply of the drugs found on the day of his arrest, 12 months concurrent; for the dangerous driving, on the first indictment, 12 months concurrent and, for driving whilst disqualified, 5 months concurrent, and disqualified for 12 months.

The applicant was 28 years of age. He had a not inconsiderable criminal record. In the past he had served 4 years for attempted robbery. His record also included offences of resisting arrest, failure to surrender to bail and driving whilst disqualified. There were two previous convictions for ordinary possession of dangerous drugs but none for supply.

What is argued, if we may say so, with commendable brevity and clarity is that the sentence of 8 years suggests a starting point which is too high or, if the judge started at a proper starting point, insufficient credit has been given for plea.

We agree it is important that pleas of guilty in serious cases, where long sentences are to be expected, should be recognised by significant moderation for sentence. Even where defendants are caught effectively red-handed, the incentive to advance spurious defences can be considerable.

In the present case, the applicant's admissions in interview were extensive, and formed the basis of the principal counts against him. There had not been observation evidence or other evidence of supplying on occasions before his arrest. However, he prevaricated somewhat in the court proceedings and was minded until the day of trial to contest the admissibility of the admissions in interview. He also continued until the last minute to deny any connection with the drugs found on the day of his arrests. The pleas were not tendered at the first opportunity.

Quite apart from that, it is plain that the learned judge was concerned principally with the totality of the sentence. That, it seems to us, is clear from, for example, the very short concurrent sentences which were imposed in relation to the dealing quantities of drugs found on the day of arrest. We agree, of course, that concurrent sentences for those offences were appropriate. The same was not necessarily true of the dangerous driving, which was a different sort of offence, committed on a different day, by a disqualified driver and in an attempt to escape the police.

Had the learned judge imposed the 12 months for dangerous driving consecutively, to a sentence of, for example, 7 years for the drug offences, we doubt if he could have been criticised at all.

In any event, the sentence, though severe, appears to us to be entirely appropriate. We like the judge have addressed the totality. It follows that the application is dismissed.

A supplementary point of some general significance arises, although it will make little difference to this applicant. Section 36 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988, makes it mandatory for a sentencing court to order the defendant to take an extended driving test, when there is a conviction for any of these three offences: 1. Manslaughter by use of a motor vehicle;

2. Causing death by dangerous driving; and

3. Dangerous driving.

This is a provision perhaps little known, and often overlooked, and it was overlooked in this case. We are unable, in this case, to add the order now, because that would result in a sentence to that extent more severe than was passed in the Crown Court.

We take the opportunity, however, to emphasise that the making of such an order is obligatory and we express the hope that, having drawn attention to it, that will occasion such orders being made in future, where they are required.