Attorney General's Reference No. 11 of 2006

Attorney General's Reference No. 11 of 2006

The sentence imposed was unduly lenient because the offender was not an addict supplying only to undercover officers but was retailing for profit on a considerable scale, as evidenced by the number of deals and business cards. The judge erred in applying the Afonso criteria; proper sentencing required a custodial term reflecting the seriousness and scale of the offence.

Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Thomas Richard Edwin Scarth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Attorney General's Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Sentence quashed and replaced
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Possession With Intent to Supply, Unduly Lenient Sentence, Drug Offences
Criminal Law Sentencing Possession With Intent to Supply Unduly Lenient Sentence Drug Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Thomas Richard Edwin Scarth

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Attorney General's Reference Under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for possession with intent to supply heroin was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Appropriate sentencing guidelines for street-level drug dealing
  3. 3 Application of sentencing principles in light of offender's circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed was unduly lenient because the offender was not an addict supplying only to undercover officers but was retailing for profit on a considerable scale, as evidenced by the number of deals and business cards. The judge erred in applying the Afonso criteria; proper sentencing required a custodial term reflecting the seriousness and scale of the offence.

Court Disposition

Sentence quashed and replaced

Orders

  • Sentence of two years' detention in a young offender institution imposed
  • 112 days spent on remand to count towards sentence