Daniel Lewis [2019] EWCA Crim 253
The defendant pleaded guilty to seven offences of possession with intent to supply Class A, B and C drugs namely LSD, cocaine,
The defendant had no convictions, the police attended his flat as a young woman had fallen from the window, she subsequently died, and a toxicology report revealed the presence of cocaine and ketamine. The defendant was found naked, agitated, sweating profusely and under the influence of drugs. Significant quantities of drugs and steroids were found, as well as cutting agents, price lists, prescription medication and paraphernalia indicative of dealing. A garage rented to him was searched and further drugs found. The prosecution case was that for at least a year he had been running a commercial business selling Class A, B and C drugs, including steroids, both in the form of local deliveries and by post.
The defendant initially claimed all the drugs were for personal use and not guilty pleas were entered. During a discussion in chambers in respect of outstanding disclosure reference was made to a potential Goodyear indication and the judge made certain observations about rehabilitating rather than imprisoning offenders. No such indication was in fact sought and the defendant pleaded guilty. A psychiatric report was obtained confirming a mixed neuro-developmental disorder with features of ADHD and Asperger’s. There was significant delay in the case during which the defendant had turned his life around.
Held: the judge attached undue weight to the focus on rehabilitation. The circumstances in which the issue of sentencing was raised in chambers is troubling and no application for a Goodyear indication was made. The feature of delay was not as impressing to the Court of Appeal as to the judge, the defendant knew all along he had been supplying drugs and could not expect the court to give much weight to mitigation based upon delay. Finally, the statutory aims of punishment of offenders, the reduction of crime including by deterrence and the protection of the public should, in the circumstances of this case, have carried very considerable weight. The judge did not identify compelling reasons why the rehabilitation of the offender so far outweighed the interest of justice for her to apply the guideline rather than depart from it to the extent that she did. The sentence was unduly lenient, the performance on the orders was reflected in a significant reduction from the total sentence which would have been appropriate at the date of the offending. The sentence was quashed and replaced with a total of three years’ imprisonment.