Neutral Citation Number: [2009] EWCA Crim 1938
Case No: 2009/02189/A1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL  DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Date: Thursday 10 September 2009

B e f o r e:

LORD  JUSTICE  RIX

MR  JUSTICE  TUGENDHAT

and

HIS  HONOUR  JUDGE  PERT  QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

R E G I N A

- v -

LEON  MELVIN  BOOTHE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcription by
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
165 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone 020 7404 1400; Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr S J Mann appeared on behalf of the Applicant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT

LORD JUSTICE RIX:  I shall ask Mr Justice Tugendhat to give the judgment of the court.

MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT:

1.  The applicant is aged 23.  On 12 December 2008, at the Crown Court at Wolverhampton, he pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm (a shotgun).  On 17 February 2009, on re-arraignment he pleaded guilty to possession with intent to supply of a quantity of cocaine, a class A drug.  On 9 March 2009, he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Moll to the statutory minimum of five years' imprisonment in respect of the firearms offence.  He was also sentenced for the cocaine offence to four years' imprisonment, to be served consecutively, making a total of nine years' imprisonment.  There was a direction that 121 days spent on remand should count towards the sentence.  The judge made appropriate forfeiture and other orders.  The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.  However, the single judge granted the necessary extension of time (sixteen days).

2.  There was a female co-accused, whose date of birth was 1991, with whom we are not concerned.

3.  On 6 November 2008, a few minutes before the police were due to execute a search warrant at a flat, the applicant and a woman were seen to leave it.  The police identified themselves.  The woman was found to be in possession of a wrap of heroin and a wrap of crack cocaine, and the applicant of eight wraps of crack cocaine.  Officers then executed the search warrant at the flat.  A set of scales, a block containing 10.4 grams of crack cocaine and a total of £1,460 in cash were found.  The crack cocaine had a street value of about £1,000.  Significantly, the police also found the double-barrelled, sawn-off shotgun, which was loaded with two cartridges.  

4.  The applicant declined to comment when he was interviewed.

5.  There was a basis of plea for the drug offence.  It was that the applicant had been a drug user for many years and that he had decided to buy more than he used himself.  He sold the excess to friends who were also drug users.  He said that he only did it for a short time.

6.  The applicant has not been previously convicted, although he has a reprimand and a caution on his record.

7.  The submission made on the applicant's behalf is that the sentence was manifestly excessive.  The main emphasis before us is that the totality of nine years was too long for such a young man who has not previously been convicted.  In addition, it is said that the judge adopted too high a stating point for the drug offence and failed to take into account the personal mitigation.

8.  There is no doubt that nine years is a long sentence for an offender aged 23.  However, the firearms offence is the statutory minimum sentence and there are aggravating features in relation to the cocaine offence.  The combination of the two offences for which the judge was sentencing the applicant is a combination of exceptional seriousness.  The applicant's offences were very serious indeed.  In these circumstances we can see nothing wrong with the sentences passed by the judge.  It was correct to impose consecutive sentences.  We do not consider that the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.  The application is refused.