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!
[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 >> Ali, R. [2024] EWCA Crim 1218 (10 October 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/1218.html Cite as: [2024] EWCA Crim 1218 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT SOUTHWARK
(MR RECORDER CAMPBELL KC) [01CW1179423]
London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
(Lord Justice Holroyde)
MR JUSTICE MARTIN SPENCER
MRS JUSTICE CUTTS DBE
____________________
R E X |
||
- v - |
||
MAHAMUD ALI |
____________________
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: [email protected] (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday 10 October 2024
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDE: I shall ask Mr Justice Martin Spencer to give the judgment of the court.
MR JUSTICE MARTIN SPENCER:
"It is right that supplying fake prohibited drugs involves a lesser degree of criminality than supplying the real thing. That difference is reflected in the fact that the relevant charges were ones of offering to supply, rather than actual supply, of Class A drugs. But we do not think it right to regard the case as simply one of obtaining money by fraud. It is certainly a form of fraud, but it is a fraud in the context of a particular market, namely the market in prohibited drugs. Markets exist where there are willing buyers and willing sellers. Offering to sell is a form of market promotion, even if the offeror cheats the offeree by supplying false drugs."
"However, I do not believe this is strong enough to justify the conclusion I should suspend the sentence, bearing in mind what I regard as poor prospects of rehabilitation in your case and also the need for appropriate punishment to be achieved by immediate custody."
"Psychiatric support in prison, where he was on a mental health wing, he stated he was provided with medication. However, he would throw this medication away."
Thus we consider that, although there may have been an error in relation to the date, Dr Agarwal was entitled to consider that there had been a history of failure to comply with medication by reference to that note.
"This application is referred to the full court to consider the relevance of guidelines and the correct approach where the drugs were fake."
Tugwell and the cases cited therein were decided before the availability of the guidelines from the Sentencing Council on sentencing in drugs cases. In the course of argument in the court below, there was discussion between prosecuting counsel and the learned Recorder as to the correct approach in modern cases. Prosecuting counsel, Mr Benson, did not initially take the learned Recorder to the sentencing guideline at all, but took him straight to the previous authorities and in particular Tugwell, whilst acknowledging that those authorities are relatively old. There was then this exchange:
"RECORDER CAMPBELL: Well, I follow that, but can we have a bit of structure to this. I mean, presumably I start with the usual guideline, do I not, rather than going straight to cases, which pre-date the guidelines. … do I not go for the general drug guideline, section 4.3, supplying or offering to supply? Do I not do that and then make a discount?
MR BENSON: I would submit that your Honour should be guided by the case law rather than that guideline, because that guideline relates to the selling of actual drugs, and this is not a case that involves the selling of actual drugs.
RECORDER CAMPBELL: Well, I follow that, but there was an offer to supply an actual drug. So, one way of doing it – you may say this is wrong, okay, but one way of doing it might have been to start with the guideline and say, 'Well, that is what it would have been if it would have been supply of the actual drug, but it must be subject to considerable discount of a factor of two or three, or whatever'. And you might say that R v Tugwell is an illustration of that principle, although it pre-dates the guideline. But you are not saying to do that … you are saying go straight to R v Tugwell."
1. Consider the appropriate starting point by reference to the applicable guideline;
2. Adjust the starting point to take into account aggravating and mitigating factors in the usual way;
3. If appropriate, apply a further discount to take into account the fact that the drugs were fake, the amount of the discount to be decided according to the particular facts of the case, including, for example, the nature of the product in fact being offered for sale; and
4. Apply any discount as credit for the offender's guilty plea.