The defendants appealed sentences for supplying drugs. They were first time defendants, addicts caught selling drugs to police officers, and with no established stocks of drugs for sale.
Held: A short prison sentence was appropriate. A drug treatment and testing might be appropriate for some defendants. Whilst none of the defendants fell precisely within the group identified, the sentences were adjusted.
Rose LJ, Owen J, Mitting J
Times 14-Oct-2004
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Regina v Twisse CACD 7-Nov-2000
There was no need for the Court of Appeal to notify the Sentencing Advisory Panel under the Act unless it intended to give sentencing guidelines across a wide field. A proper sentence for a defendant shown to be a dealer in class A drugs at street . .
Cited – Regina v McKeown and Others (Attorney-General’s Reference Nos 13 to 18 of 2004) CACD 7-Jul-2004
The Attorney-General appealed sentences imposed on the defendants for supplying heroin.
Held: The offences involved all the aggravating factors for such cases. Drugs had been sold near schools though children not specifically targeted. The . .
Approved – Regina v Dhajit CACD 1999
Sentencing guidelines for supply of drugs. . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 64 of 2003) CACD 20-Nov-2003
The attorney general sought re-assessment of the defendant’s sentence of a Drug treatment and testing order.
Held: When considering a Drug Treatment and Testing Order, the court should consider: the realistic possibility that such orders may . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.218844 br>