R v H
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE GRIGSON |
| Judgment Date | 05 October 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Crim 2024 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No: 2001/2915/Z4 |
| Date | 05 October 2001 |
[2001] EWCA Crim 2024
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Mantell
Mr Justice Rougier and
Mr Justice Grigson
No: 2001/2915/Z4
MR H REES appeared on behalf of the Appellant
On 4th December 2000 at the Aylesbury Crown Court this appellant pleaded guilty to the simple possession of 2.27 grammes of cocaine and pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to supply ecstasy. He was tried for that offence with others; he was acquitted on 15th May. On 18th May he was sentenced to the term of six months' imprisonment for this offence.
The facts briefly are that he was arrested after a police surveillance operation, the evidence of which was led against him and the others at his trial. His defence at that trial was that he was engaged in the supply of steroids, not the supply of ecstasy. After his arrest his home was searched and police found 2.27 grams of cocaine there. The appellant had always admitted that it was his.
He is now 27 years of age. He has one relevant previous conviction. In 1995 he admitted possession of amphetamine, possession of ecstasy and possession of cannabis and was made the subject of a community service order for 180 hours.
Having been sentenced the fact is that he is no longer in custody having been released from prison subject to a home detention curfew order which expires next month on the 17th August. The grounds of appeal are that the offence did not cross the custody threshold and even if it did six months was manifestly excessive and four months would have been more appropriate and the judge is criticised for not seeking a pre-sentence report.
As to the last matter, the judge was not obliged to seek a pre-sentence report. As to the other matters, it is plain from decisions of this court that an immediate custodial sentence may well be appropriate even where it is simple possession if the drugs are drugs of class A. Further, this appellant had a previous conviction.
In our view, in those circumstances, this sentence, whilst it might be described as severe, cannot be described as manifestly excessive and the appeal will be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Carass (Clive Louden)
...QB 27; [1974] 3 WLR 285; [1974] 2 All ER 1085, CA R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; [2001] 3 WLR 206; [2001] 3 All ER 577, HL(E) R v M [2001] EWCA Crim 2024; [2002] 1 WLR 824, R v Whyte (1988) 51 DLR (4th) 481 Salabiaku v France (1988) 13 EHRR 379 The following additional cases, although not cite......
-
The Lord Chancellor v Robert Ross
...s.4A are not criminal trials. The proceedings do not result in a conviction and the House of Lords held in R v H (Fitness to Plead) [2002] 1 WLR 824 that Article 6 ECHR does not apply to such proceedings. However, in her submission, nothing was said in R v H nor in Roberts which has the ef......
-
R v Bell (Ivor Malachy)
...such a hearing was subsequently considered by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in conjoined appeals of R v M; R v Kerr and R v H [2002] 1 WLR 824. These cases were decided after Antoine and the Court of Appeal was fully sighted of Lord Hutton’s judgment and that of Lord Bingham in t......
-
R v Grant (Heather)
...relating to persons who have been charged with murder but are found to be unfit to be tried. In R v. Moore, Kerr and Haroon [2001] EWCA Crim 2024, the court considered the compatibility of the relevant procedures with the European Convention on Human Rights. The present case raises further ......
-
Fitness for trial in the district court: the legal perspective
...person’s mental disorder. The Bail Act 1997 states that the recognisance may be subject to such conditions as the Court Crim. 2024; [2002] 1 W.L.R. 824, R v. Grant [2001] E.W.C.A. Crim. 2611; [2002] 1 Q.B. 1030 and R. v. H. [2003] U.K.H.L. 1; [2003] 1 W.L.R. 411. 21If the person is remanded......
-
Unfitness to Plead and Restraining Orders: ‘A Lacuna in the Court’s Armoury’
...did therelevant act is plainly not a conviction because the accused, being unfit to plead, has not been tried forthe offence (see RvM[2002] 1 WLR 824 and RvWells [2015] EWCA Crim 2). In the present case,prosecution counsel sought to argue that a finding that an unfit accused did the act is ......