Jerelle Dixon [2019] EWCA Crim 1431

Jerelle Dixon [2019] EWCA Crim 1431 concerned an appeal against sentence by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division which allowed the appeal in part. Mr Dixon pleaded guilty before the South London Magistrates’ Court to possession of MDMA with intent to supply contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was committed for sentence pursuant to section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. On 21 February 2019 Mr Recorder Dawson sitting in the Crown Court at Inner London sentenced Mr Dixon to three years imprisonment. Leave to appeal was granted by the single judge.

On 25 August 2018 Mr Dixon attended the SW4 music festival on Clapham Common. Before entering he was searched by security staff and found to be in possession of two Kinder eggs, one in his waistband and the other in his rucksack. They contained a total of 86 MDMA pills with a street value of £860, sufficient for between 43 and 86 deals. Mr Dixon was in possession of an iPhone and refused to give the PIN number. Whilst he was being documented messages appeared over a five hour period, five of which related to requests for drugs.

The prosecution submitted that this was a Category 3 offence involving street dealing and that Mr Dixon played a significant role because the offending was motivated by financial advantage. This gave a starting point of four and a half years custody with a range of three and a half to seven years custody. Mr Dixon was sentenced without a pre-sentence report.

On behalf of Mr Dixon Miss Silvio submitted that the Recorder should have concluded that he played a lesser role with a starting point of three years custody and a range of two to four and a half years custody. She submitted that the bottom end of that range was the appropriate starting point. She further submitted that the Recorder did not initially identify the role which he had found Mr Dixon had played in his sentencing remarks, nor did he identify the starting point before credit or the credit for the guilty plea. When asked by Miss Silvio, the Recorder indicated that he had taken a starting point of three and a half years custody and reduced it to three years for the guilty plea. It was submitted that the reduction of only six months custody did not properly reflect the one third credit to which Mr Dixon was entitled. Miss Silvio also submitted that the Recorder failed to pay sufficient regard to Mr Dixon’s age, his limited previous convictions and other matters of mitigation. The court took into account a letter from Mr Dixon expressing remorse and a letter from his mother.

The court held that as an immediate custodial sentence was inevitable it was unnecessary to obtain a pre-sentence report. Having regard to the quantity involved, this was clearly a Category 3 offence involving street dealing. The court was satisfied that Mr Dixon played a significant role, the overwhelming inference being that he was motivated by financial advantage. The messages to the phone and Mr Dixon’s refusal to disclose the PIN number to the police confirmed that. The drugs were to be supplied at a music festival. Having considered all matters of mitigation, the Recorder took a starting point at the very bottom of the range. The court considered that notwithstanding all the mitigation, that was an appropriate starting point.

However, having pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity, notwithstanding his no comment interview, Mr Dixon was entitled to full credit. The court held that it was unclear why the Recorder only reduced the sentence by six months to reflect credit. As the appropriate starting point was three and a half years custody, giving full credit for the guilty plea, the court quashed the sentence of three and a half years imprisonment and substituted a sentence of 28 months imprisonment. In short, the appeal was allowed because the Recorder failed to afford full credit for the guilty plea entered at the first available opportunity.