Defendant to serve no additional time in custody despite 4 additional drug supply charges

Our client, a serving prisoner, was charged with 2 counts of possession with intent to supply of class A drugs, 1 count of possession with intent to supply of class B drugs and 1 count of possession with intent to supply of psycho active substances.

We noted several issues in relations to these proceedings, and drafted robust representations to the CPS, requesting that they review the charging decision on the following grounds:

Delay

We submitted that the delay in this case was significant and concerning, with a delay more than 2 years between the arrest and the charges, in what was arguably a very simple case. We accepted that it is possible for this delay to be faultless on behalf of all parties, but nonetheless extremely prejudicial to our client, who has spent a long sentence trying to rehabilitate himself, only to be prosecuted afresh several years after the offences in question, having had prosecutions conclude for other like offences committed both before and after the offences in question.

Our client was a serving a sentence of 50 months imprisonment in relation to similar drugs offences from cases in 2021 and 2022. We submitted that throughout this sentence, he worked incredibly hard to be moved to a category D prison where he could train and obtain work to prepare for his eventual release into the community.

We emphasised that prosecutors must consider the interests of justice relating to both the complainant and our client, and in this case, our client’s interests were prejudiced by the delay, and the prosecution was not necessary to satisfy the needs of any identifiable complainant.

Other Proceedings

We also argued that there were other compelling circumstances which prejudiced our client, relating to other similar proceedings and sentences.

Between 2020 and 2022, our client faced 3 sets of proceedings for offences that took place within those two years, both before and after the offences in the new proceedings. Between 2020 and 2022 he was sentenced for all 3 matters. All the sets of proceedings had almost identical drugs charges as with the new case.

We submitted that the period of 2020-2022 therefore represented a period in our client’s life where he accepts this offending was a serious issue. We noted that he had been duly punished, receiving a total sentence (across the separate proceedings) of 77 months (6 years and 5 months). Nearly 2 years after the conclusion of these matters, he was charged in the present proceedings which relate to offences within that period (May of 2022).

We argued that this was particularly unfair, as during his prosecutions for other matters, we chased the police to consider either taking these offences into consideration (TIC) or expedite the case so that our client could be dealt with for all matters and be given the chance at a clean break from offending upon his eventual release.

We submitted a detailed chronology setting out the charge dates and hearings for all the relevant proceedings, and our correspondence with the officer back in 2022 and 2023 in an effort to have the matters resolved together.

We submitted that to be prosecuted now is unfair in light of these collective circumstances and the severe delay in this matter.

At Court

Despite submitting our representations well in advance of the first hearing in the Crown Court, the Crown requested more time to review the matter before providing a response. Counsel set out the spirit of our representations and explained the chronology of the new and previous proceedings to the Court.

Both our client and the Court were keen to expedite matters and our client requested a Goodyear indication. Mindful of Counsel’s representations regarding the chronology of these proceedings, the Judge indicated he intended to sentence our client in such a way that he did not serve any additional time for this case.

Our client entered a guilty plea and the case proceeded to sentence. We mitigated on behalf of our client, again relying on the content of the representations regarding delay, other proceedings, and his efforts to rehabilitate himself in custody.

The Judge allowed for full credit to be applied to the sentence, and our client was sentenced to a total of 2 years imprisonment for the 4 charges. Most importantly, this sentence was imposed to run concurrently with the sentence that our client was already serving. This means our client was able to maintain his release date and will not serve any additional time for these offences.

Our client was extremely pleased and relieved that the very real prospect of a longer stint in custody could be put to rest.  We were pleased that this case would not deter him from the progress he had made in custody.

Phoebe Coleman was the solicitor with conduct of this case. Natasha Hardaker assisted as her paralegal, and Tasmin Malcom of Crucible Chambers was instructed Counsel.