Dealer involved in supplying cocaine to Scottish Highlands has sentence reduced by High Court following appeal

Scottish Legal News reports

About this case:

  • CITATION: [2023] HCJAC 13
  • JUDGMENT: External link
  • COURT: Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
  • JUDGE: Lord Pentland

 

Alasdair Finlayson and Cameron Ross both pled guilty to a charge of being concerned in the supply of cocaine, with the first appellant also pleading guilty to a second charge of supplying cannabis, the sentence for which he did not appeal. The first appellant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment in respect of the cocaine charge, and the second appellant to 23 months’ imprisonment.

The appeal was heard by Lord Pentland and Lord Matthews. D Findlay KC appeared for the first appellant, A Ogg, solicitor advocate, for the second appellant, and Way, advocate depute, for the Crown.

Accepted responsibility

The first appellant had played a significant part in a large-scale operation to supply cocaine to the Highlands over a period from January to August 2020. Pursuant to a surveillance operation, he was identified as meeting and exchanging items with suspected English drug dealers, travelling to, from and between various so-called stash sites, intromitting directly with cash and controlled drugs at these sites, and selling controlled drugs to customers.

In sentencing the first appellant, the judge considered that he had played a leading role in the operation, and weighed this against the mitigating factors that he was himself a user of the drugs he supplied and was in debt to others at a higher level in the supply chain, which to some extent influenced his decision to remain involved in the drug trade. A headline sentence of 10 years was selected, discounted by a year after the first appellant pled guilty shortly before trial.

Counsel for the first appellant submitted that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to the mitigating factors. It was clear on the basis of the evidence that the appellant was not a high level organiser, and he accepted full responsibility for his crimes. Attention was also brought to the outcome of a different prosecution against a person at a higher level of the supply chain who had been given a headline sentence shorter than that given to the appellant.

The second appellant, aged 18 at the time of the offence was observed meeting someone along a forestry track in the Glenglass area, which led police to a stash of cocaine and boric acid hidden there. He maintained that he had been intimidated into hiding drugs at the location by someone he declined to name. The sentencing judge took the view that he deliberately involved himself in a large scale drug operation but in light of his age and other factors imposed a headline sentence of 30 months.

True level of participation

Lord Pentland, delivering the opinion of the court, began with the first appellant’s case: “Contrary to the view formed by the sentencing judge, we were not satisfied that the first appellant’s involvement displayed the features of a person who played a leading role. There was, for instance, no evidence that the first appellant had an expectation of substantial financial gain, that he was using a business as a cover, that he had close links to the original source of the drugs or that he abused a position of trust or responsibility.”

He continued: “Overall, we considered that to say that the first appellant played a leading role in the sense defined by the English guidelines was to overstate the true level of his participation. In the circumstances, we concluded that the sentencing judge erred in finding that the first appellant played a leading role. We considered that the appropriate categorisation under the English guidelines would be that he played a significant role.”

Turning to the second appellant, Lord Pentland said: “The sentencing judge took account of all the relevant considerations relating to the circumstances of the offence and also of the second appellant’s personal circumstances, including his young age and other difficulties. We did not consider that he could be said to have erred in concluding that the only appropriate sentence was a custodial one.”

He concluded: “We had some difficulty in following the judge’s analysis of the relationship between the two guidelines to which we have referred but as it happens he substantially modified the period of custody that would otherwise have been appropriate for an adult offender to reflect all the mitigating factors. The sentence he ultimately selected was not excessive.”

The court therefore quashed the first appellant’s sentence and substituted a sentence of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. The appeal by the second appellant was refused.

Source:  https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/drug-dealer-involved-in-supplying-cocaine-to-highlands-has-sentence-reduced-by-high-court-following-appeal

Primary Sponsor

 


Karma Koala Podcast

Top Marijuana Blog