James Houten v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2019] HCJAC 43

Description

Note of appeal against sentence:- On 24 April 2018, at a first diet at the sheriff court, the appellant pled guilty on indictment to being concerned in the supply of cocaine contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was sentenced to a period of 23 months imprisonment discounted from a starting point of 30 months to reflect the plea of guilty. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed on the grounds it was excessive. The circumstances of the appellant’s involvement were that on a single occasion he provided a ‘safe house’ for holding drugs for a friend for which he derived no financial benefit. The appellant’s personal circumstances were that he had primary caring responsibilities for his partner’s 18 year old son who has a number of disabilities and the appellant played a significant part in his life. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that his involvement in the offence was out of character and there was no previous analogous offending with the only previous convictions relating to road traffic offences. It was submitted that the sentencing sheriff placed too much emphasis on issues of deterrence and failed to give adequate weight to the appellant’s personal circumstances, in particular, the care he provided for his partner’s disabled son. Here the court allowed the appeal. The court pointed to the important role the appellant played in the care of his partner’s son, his lack of pervious serious offending, the appellant’s positive character and the fact that he had already spent 3 months in custody, which equated to a sentence of 6 months once the early release provisions were taken into account. As a result the court considered that this was an exceptional case and could be dealt with by the quashing of the sentence of 23 months imprisonment and the imposition of Community Payback Order for a period of 3 years including an unpaid work requirement of 250 hours to be completed over a period of 12 months.