Alexander Connelly and Gary Corkindale v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2017] HCJAC 42

Notes of appeal against sentence:- The appellants pled guilty at the High Court to various drugs offences. The first appellant pled guilty to being concerned in the supply of diazepam, with a maximum value of £370,440, contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was sentenced to 6 years and 4 months imprisonment, discounted from 8 years to reflect the plea of guilty. The second appellant pled guilty to:- (1) being concerned in the supply of diazepam, with a maximum value of £370,440; (2) being concerned in the supply of amphetamine, with a maximum value of £12,490; and (3) being concerned in the supply of herbal cannabis, with a maximum value of £19,820, all contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment, discounted from 10 years to reflect the pleas of guilty. Both appellants appealed against their sentence. In relation to the first appellant the court allowed the appeal. The court noted that insufficient weight had been attached to the following factors by the sentencing judge:- (1) with the exception of road traffic offences and an attempt to pervert the course of justice in 2005, the first appellant had not been in trouble before; (2) the first appellant was employed as a manager for a pub chain; (3) in the Criminal Justice Social Work Report the first appellant recognised the seriousness of the offence and the detrimental impact of illegal drugs on the community; (4) the first appellant has stopped using cannabis which had been the cause of his offending; and (5) the first appellant had been assessed as being of minimal risk of reoffending. In relation to the second appellant the court also allowed the appeal, however, noted that a higher sentence for the second appellant was justified due to him having a previous conviction in 2012 for being concerned in the supply of amphetamine, cocaine and cannabis resin for he which was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. In addition to the significant quantity of drugs recovered the second appellant’s car also contained various other paraphernalia connected to the onward sale and supply of drugs, including tick lists, phones, bags and tape. In relation to the first appellant the court considered that a starting off point of 5 years was appropriate and applying the same discount of 20% as applied by the sentencing judge the sentence of 6 years and 4 months was quashed and substituted by a period of 4 years imprisonment. In relation to the second appellant the court took the view that a starting point of 8 years rather than 10 years was appropriate in light of the drugs recovered being Class B and Class C and, applying a discount of 20%, the sentence substituted was a period of 6 years 4 months imprisonment.