Description
Note of appeal against sentence:- On 19 June 2015, at Glasgow High Court, the appellant pled guilty, at a continued preliminary hearing, to a charge of being concerned in the supply of diamorphine over a period of 18 months contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The appellant was sentenced to 13½ years imprisonment discounted by 25% from 18 years for the plea. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed on the grounds that it was excessive. The circumstances of the offence were that the appellant would obtain high purity heroin in kilos for around £36,000-£42,000 per kilo and then pass it on to a courier who would adulterate it to increase it’s bulk from 1 kilo amounts to 4 kilo amounts resulting in a profit of £7,000-£24,000 per kilo. The courier made ten deliveries to Edinburgh, amounting to 40 kilos during the period libelled. Thereafter the adulterated diamorphine would be adulterated further into street deals with a potential realisable profit of £2.8million. When the appellant was sentenced the sentencing judge placed the appellant at the highest level of the drug supply network in the United Kingdom and, on the basis that the diamorphine was pure, he must have had first access to the drugs on their importation. Here it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the starting off point of 18 years was too high and in excess of the Definitive Guideline of the Sentencing Council of England and Wales which suggested a range of 12 – 16 years for the most serious offences under the 1971 Act. It was further submitted that the sentencing judge had been wrong to classify the purity of the diamorphine as ‘unadulterated’ and he had not been involved in the importation of the drug but, rather, had sourced it in Glasgow and it had already been subjected to the adulteration process. It was further submitted that the sentencing judge had not appreciated sufficiently that the appellant had been brought up in a criminal family and the limited profit he had received from the enterprise, said on his behalf to be in the region of £70,000-£240,000 rather than the gross profit figures which had been referred to. Finally, it was submitted that the starting point of 18 years was excessive having regard to other cases involving high end drug supply. On behalf of the Crown it was submitted that the sentencing judge had been correct to categorise the appellant’s involvement in the way he had, namely, as the director of a very high level drugs supply network and the sentence could not be described as excessive having regard to the Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline and other Scottish cases. Here the appeal was refused. The court observed that the sentencing judge was a very experienced trial judge who had considerable experience and knowledge of the nature and extent of the drug trade in the United Kingdom. The appellant had not been sentenced in relation to importing the drugs and regardless of the actual purity it was clear that significant adulteration was carried out. The court considered that any error by the sentencing judge in relation to the volume of dealing would have little impact in relation to sentencing given the quantities that were being described. The court considered that the sentence was in line with other Scottish cases relating to a high level supply network. The court considered that the street value of the drug was more significant than the actual profit received by the drug supplier. The court also placed diamorphine as the most ‘serious’ of the class A drugs given the damage the drug causes in society and that comparisons with other class A drugs when it comes to sentence should be treated with care. As far as the Sentencing Council Definitive Guidelines were concerned the court observed that whilst they are a helpful cross check they should not be applied in Scotland too rigidly. In relation to the point raised about the appellant coming from a family involved in crime the court considered that whilst morally his culpability may be reduced any such considerations are outweighed by the need to deal with such serious and damaging criminality. Finally, the court observed that it is the overall sentence that the court must consider at an appeal hearing and, whilst the amount of discount was not challenged, the discount of 25% was very generous and the final sentence was described as reasonable in all of the circumstances.
0141 553 4890
