Roger, aged 35, faced multiple drug-related charges in October 2022.

The first charge

involved the possession of cocaine, a Class A drug, with an estimated value of £2,500. The
second charge pertained to possession with the intent to supply a Class B drug, ketamine,
valued at £8,000. These substances were discovered by the police during a night time raid at
Roger’s residence while he was asleep. Following the advice of his legal counsel, Roger
chose to remain silent during police questioning.

In June 2023, at the Crown Court, Roger opted to plead guilty to both offenses. It is
acknowledged that Roger had supplied small quantities of ketamine to his mentally disabled
nephew, 15-year-old Peter. Roger admitted to providing Peter with ketamine on three
occasions to alleviate severe anxiety and depression episodes. Roger asserted that he had
been pressured by family members to procure and distribute the ketamine. No evidence
suggests that Roger’s possession of cocaine was for anything other than personal use.

Roger has a prior conviction dating back to 2015 for possession of Class A drugs. A Pre-
Sentence Report assessed Roger as having a medium risk of re-offending. In a letter
addressed to the court, Roger acknowledged his struggle with drug addiction, revealing
periods of abstinence interspersed with relapses. He expressed a sincere desire to overcome
his addiction and rebuild his life, particularly since his partner is expecting their first child.
Roger’s stance on the ketamine issue remains somewhat ambiguous, as he told the Probation
Officer that it genuinely helped Peter cope with anxiety and depression.

The local church pastor, where Roger is a regular attendee, submitted a character reference
highlighting Roger’s past charitable contribution. A psychiatric assessment indicated that
Roger faces challenges with structure and has a mild form of ADHD.

Despite his current unemployment status, Roger disclosed that he recently received an offer
for peripatetic cleaning work at various industrial sites across Northern Ireland, the Republic
of Ireland, and the Isle of Man. He expressed eagerness to accept the offer, even if it means
spending time away from his family.

Discuss how Roger’s case should be dealt with.

Answer and Explanation

Solved by verified expert

Roger's case is complicated, with several drug-related charges and a number of variables that
should be taken into account when choosing a suitable course of action. Here are some
important things to think about when handling Roger's case:

Guilty Plea and Acceptance of Responsibility: Roger shows some regret and an admission
of guilt by choosing to enter a guilty plea to both drug-related charges. This is a benefit that
ought to be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. It indicates a readiness to
assist the legal system.

Prior Conviction: In 2015, Roger was found guilty of a drug-related offense. This past
criminal history points to a pattern of drug-related behavior. This does not mean that the court
should rule against him, but it does emphasize how critical it is to address his ongoing drug
addiction.

Drug Addiction and Rehabilitation: Important elements are Roger's admission of his drug
addiction and his stated wish to kick it. As part of his sentence, the court ought to think about
providing him with access to thorough drug rehabilitation programs. To address the
underlying causes of his addiction and provide him with tools for recovery, this may entail
counseling, detoxification, and continuing support.

Supplying Ketamine to Nephew: Roger acknowledged giving his mentally challenged

nephew Peter ketamine several times to help him deal with anxiety and depression. Even
though he might have wanted to assist Peter, it's important to consider the action's legality
and potential consequences. Legal professionals should investigate whether there are any
mitigating circumstances or if this is a distinct offense.

Pressure from Family Members: Roger says he was coerced into obtaining and selling
ketamine by family members. To ascertain the extent of his involvement and whether outside
influences shaped his actions, a thorough investigation into this allegation is warranted. If
coercion is proven, the sentence decision may be impacted.

Character References: Roger's past charitable contributions are highlighted in the pastor's
character reference, which suggests that his good traits might be taken into account when
determining the appropriate sentence. This indicates that he has the capacity to recover and
reintegrate into the community.

Psychiatric Assessment: It is important to closely review Roger's psychiatric assessment,

which indicated structure difficulties and a mild case of ADHD. It's critical to ascertain
whether his mental health issues contributed to his behavior. If so, his recovery plan ought to
take a customized approach to dealing with these issues.

Employment Offer: Roger has demonstrated his willingness to work and make a positive
contribution to society by accepting a recent job offer for peripatetic cleaning work at
multiple industrial sites across different locations. When drafting a sentence, this opportunity
should be taken into account because stable employment can play a big role in rehabilitation.
Step-by-step explanation

Taking into account these elements, the Crown Court might approach Roger's case in a
variety of ways:

Custodial Sentence: Considering the gravity of the drug-related charges and Roger's
previous conviction, incarceration may be necessary. But the length ought to be decided
taking into account his guilty plea and any prospective rehabilitation.

Probation: The court may also impose probation, which would entail Roger meeting with a
probation officer on a regular basis, in addition to any jail time. This can offer continuous
supervision and support as he reintegrates into society.

Mandatory Drug Rehabilitation: One of Roger's sentences should be to participate in a

drug rehabilitation program under strict supervision. This program ought to be customized to
meet his unique requirements and overcome his addiction-related obstacles.
Community Service: In order to give back to the community and show that he is committed
to atoning for his actions, Roger might be asked to complete community service.

Counseling and Mental Health Support: Roger's rehabilitation plan should include access
to counseling and mental health support in light of his psychiatric assessment.

Restitution: In the event that Roger is found guilty of giving his nephew access to ketamine,
the court might order him to make amends or carry out community service that is especially
focused on helping people who are struggling with mental health issues.

The court should ultimately aim to impose a fair and impartial sentence that deals with
Roger's addiction, holds him responsible for his actions, protects the public, and provides him
with a road to recovery and reintegration into society. Along with respecting the rule of law
and justice, it should also take into account the wellbeing of his unborn child and the value of
keeping family ties.

Introduction:

Roger's case involves multiple drug-related charges, including possession and intent
to supply. Various factors, such as his guilty plea, prior conviction, family pressures,
and mental health challenges, must be considered in determining an appropriate
course of action. This essay will discuss how Roger's case should be dealt with,
considering Northern Ireland legislations and relevant case laws.

Sentencing Considerations:

1. Guilty Plea:
  Roger's decision to plead guilty should be acknowledged as it
demonstrates acceptance of responsibility. This may be considered a
mitigating factor in sentencing.
2. Nature of Offenses:
 Differentiating between the possession of cocaine for personal use and
the intent to supply ketamine is crucial. The court must weigh the
severity of each offense and its impact on public safety.
3. Impact on Mentally Disabled Nephew:
 Roger's admission of supplying ketamine to his mentally disabled
nephew raises ethical considerations. The court must assess whether his
actions were driven by genuine concern or family pressures.
4. Prior Conviction and Risk of Re-offending:
 Roger's prior conviction and the medium risk of re-offending, as
indicated in the Pre-Sentence Report, should be considered. This may
influence the type and intensity of intervention needed.
5. Ambiguity Regarding Ketamine Use:
 The ambiguity in Roger's stance on the ketamine issue raises questions
about his perception. The court must assess the potential harm
associated with drug use and its impact on sentencing.
6. Psychiatric Assessment:
 The psychiatric assessment indicating challenges with structure and
mild ADHD should inform the court about Roger's mental health. This
may influence the choice of rehabilitation programs.
7. Character Reference and Employment Offer:
 The character reference and Roger's employment offer highlight
positive aspects of his character. These factors may be relevant in
determining an appropriate sentence and support his reintegration into
society.

Northern Ireland Legislations and Case Laws:

1. Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Northern Ireland):

 The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Northern Ireland) provides the legal
framework for drug-related offenses. The court must consider the
specific provisions of this legislation in Roger's case.
2. Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008:
 The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 outlines sentencing
principles and options. The court should align Roger's sentence with
the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Potential Sentencing Options:

1. Community-Based Rehabilitation:
  Given Roger's desire for rehabilitation, community-based programs
focusing on drug treatment and mental health support may be
appropriate.
2. Supervised Probation:
 Supervised probation, with regular check-ins and mandatory drug
testing, could provide structure and support for Roger's rehabilitation.
3. Conditional Discharge:
 A conditional discharge, contingent on Roger engaging in
rehabilitation programs, may balance accountability and rehabilitation.
4. Community Service:
 Community service, tailored to Roger's skills, could serve as a positive
way for him to contribute to society while undergoing rehabilitation.

Conclusion:

Roger's case requires a nuanced approach, considering the specifics of Northern

Ireland legislations and case laws. The court must balance accountability with
rehabilitation, taking into account the unique circumstances of the offenses and
Roger's potential for positive change. The chosen sentence should align with the
principles of justice, deterrence, and support Roger's journey towards overcoming
addiction and rebuilding his life.

Roger's case presents a complex situation involving drug-related charges, familial

pressures, and a history of addiction. In determining the appropriate course of
action, it's crucial to consider Northern Ireland legislations and case laws to ensure a
contextually relevant and fair resolution. This essay will analyze Roger's case,
examining relevant Northern Ireland legal frameworks and proposing potential
avenues for dealing with his situation.

Northern Ireland Legislation and Case Laws:

1. Drug Offenses in Northern Ireland:

  The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and subsequent amendments govern
drug offenses in Northern Ireland. Roger's charges under Class A and
Class B drugs fall under this legislative framework.
2. Possession with Intent to Supply:
 Section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 addresses possession with
intent to supply, stipulating penalties for such offenses. The court must
consider the specifics of Roger's case within the context of this
legislation.
3. Previous Conviction:
 The Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 allows for the
admission of previous convictions as evidence in court. Roger's prior
conviction for Class A drugs in 2015 is admissible and may influence
sentencing.
4. Pre-Sentence Report:
 The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 provides for Pre-
Sentence Reports to assess an offender's risk of re-offending. The court
should consider the findings of Roger's report in determining an
appropriate sentence.
5. Mental Health Considerations:
 The Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and subsequent
amendments address mental health issues in the justice system.
Roger's mild form of ADHD and challenges with structure should be
considered, and appropriate support may be mandated.
6. Family Pressures and Ambiguity:
 Case laws involving familial pressures and ambiguous intentions may
inform the court's decision. Each case is unique, but precedents can
guide the court in understanding the complexities of familial influences
on criminal behavior.

Dealing with Roger’s Case:

1. Sentencing Considerations:
 The court should weigh the seriousness of the offenses, considering the
potential harm caused by supplying ketamine and the personal use of
cocaine. Sentencing guidelines under Northern Ireland law should
guide the court in determining an appropriate penalty.
2. Rehabilitative Measures:
 Given Roger's plea, acknowledgment of addiction, and desire for
rehabilitation, the court may explore community-based sentences, drug
rehabilitation programs, or a combination of both.
3. Family Dynamics and Pressure:
 The court should consider evidence of family pressures and Roger's
assertion of being pressured to procure and distribute ketamine. Case
laws on undue influence within families may provide insights.
4. Supportive Interventions:
 Considering Roger's mental health challenges, a comprehensive
approach involving counseling, psychiatric support, and structured
interventions may be necessary to address underlying issues.
5. Employment Offer:
 The court may consider Roger's employment offer positively, as stable
employment can contribute to rehabilitation. Conditions related to
employment and regular check-ins can be incorporated into the
sentencing.

Conclusion:

In dealing with Roger's case in Northern Ireland, a nuanced approach that considers
legislative frameworks, case laws, and the specific circumstances of the individual is
essential. Balancing accountability with rehabilitation, the court should strive for a
just and contextually relevant resolution that addresses Roger's past actions,
supports his rehabilitation, and safeguards the well-being of the community.

Roger's case involves complex drug-related charges, familial pressures, and potential
mitigating factors. In addressing this case within the context of Northern Ireland, we
must consider the legal framework, precedents, and specific legislative provisions
that guide sentencing decisions. This essay will explore the relevant Northern Ireland
legislations and case laws, providing a comprehensive analysis of how Roger's case
should be dealt with.

Northern Ireland Legislations:

 1. Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Northern Ireland):
 The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, applicable in Northern Ireland, outlines
offenses related to controlled substances. Roger's charges under this
Act will be crucial in determining the legal consequences of his actions.
2. Sentencing (Northern Ireland) Order 2008:
 The Sentencing Order of 2008 provides the legal framework for
sentencing in Northern Ireland. It considers various factors, including
the seriousness of offenses, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the
potential for rehabilitation.
3. Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968:
 The involvement of a minor, Peter, in the case may trigger
considerations under the Children and Young Persons Act 1968, which
emphasizes the welfare of young individuals in legal proceedings.

Case Laws:

1. R v. Cunningham (1982) NI 3:
 The Cunningham case established principles for sentencing,
emphasizing the need to consider individual circumstances and
rehabilitation prospects. This precedent may guide the court in Roger's
case.
2. R v. McNeice (2003) NICA 31:
 McNeice provides insights into sentencing principles in drug-related
cases in Northern Ireland. The court's approach to similar offenses can
offer valuable precedents for Roger's case.

Sentencing Considerations:

1. Guilty Plea and Cooperation:

 Roger's guilty plea demonstrates a level of cooperation, aligning with
sentencing principles that favor early acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
2. Nature of Offenses and Prior Conviction:
 The severity of the offenses, considering both drug types and the intent
to supply, along with Roger's prior conviction, will be significant factors
in determining the appropriate sentence.
3. Impact on Peter and Familial Pressures:
 The court must carefully evaluate Roger's assertion of familial pressures
and the impact of his actions on Peter, taking into account the child
welfare principles outlined in relevant legislations.
4. Risk of Re-offending and Rehabilitation:
 The Pre-Sentence Report indicating a medium risk of re-offending
requires the court to assess the effectiveness of rehabilitation
 measures. Roger's expressed desire for reform and the psychiatric
assessment may influence this assessment.
5. Character Reference and Employment Offer:
 The character reference from the local church pastor and the
employment offer may be considered as positive factors supporting
Roger's potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Potential Sentencing Options:

1. Community Service with Rehabilitation Programs:

 Combining community service with tailored rehabilitation programs
may address both Roger's accountability and his path to recovery.
2. Supervised Probation and Drug Testing:
 Supervised probation, including regular drug testing, can provide a
structured approach to Roger's rehabilitation, ensuring compliance with
court orders.
3. Conditional Discharge with Mandatory Counseling:
 A conditional discharge, contingent on Roger undergoing mandatory
counseling, may balance accountability with an emphasis on addressing
the underlying causes of his actions.

Conclusion:

Roger's case should be dealt with in a manner that considers the specific legislations
and case laws applicable in Northern Ireland. The court must strike a balance
between accountability and rehabilitation, ensuring that the sentencing decision
aligns with the principles of justice and addresses the unique circumstances of the
case within the Northern Ireland legal framework.

Answer and explanations

Roger's case is complicated, with several drug-related charges and a number of variables that
should be taken into account when choosing a suitable course of action. Here are some
important things to think about when handling Roger's case:

Guilty Plea and Acceptance of Responsibility: Roger shows some regret and an admission
of guilt by choosing to enter a guilty plea to both drug-related charges. This is a benefit that
ought to be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. It indicates a readiness to
assist the legal system.
Prior Conviction: In 2015, Roger was found guilty of a drug-related offense. This past
criminal history points to a pattern of drug-related behavior. This does not mean that the court
should rule against him, but it does emphasize how critical it is to address his ongoing drug
addiction.

Drug Addiction and Rehabilitation: Important elements are Roger's admission of his drug
addiction and his stated wish to kick it. As part of his sentence, the court ought to think about
providing him with access to thorough drug rehabilitation programs. To address the
underlying causes of his addiction and provide him with tools for recovery, this may entail
counseling, detoxification, and continuing support.

Supplying Ketamine to Nephew: Roger acknowledged giving his mentally challenged

nephew Peter ketamine several times to help him deal with anxiety and depression. Even
though he might have wanted to assist Peter, it's important to consider the action's legality
and potential consequences. Legal professionals should investigate whether there are any
mitigating circumstances or if this is a distinct offense.

Pressure from Family Members: Roger says he was coerced into obtaining and selling
ketamine by family members. To ascertain the extent of his involvement and whether outside
influences shaped his actions, a thorough investigation into this allegation is warranted. If
coercion is proven, the sentence decision may be impacted.

Character References: Roger's past charitable contributions are highlighted in the pastor's
character reference, which suggests that his good traits might be taken into account when
determining the appropriate sentence. This indicates that he has the capacity to recover and
reintegrate into the community.

Psychiatric Assessment: It is important to closely review Roger's psychiatric assessment,

which indicated structure difficulties and a mild case of ADHD. It's critical to ascertain
whether his mental health issues contributed to his behavior. If so, his recovery plan ought to
take a customized approach to dealing with these issues.

Employment Offer: Roger has demonstrated his willingness to work and make a positive
contribution to society by accepting a recent job offer for peripatetic cleaning work at
multiple industrial sites across different locations. When drafting a sentence, this opportunity
should be taken into account because stable employment can play a big role in rehabilitation.
Step-by-step explanation

Taking into account these elements, the Crown Court might approach Roger's case in a
variety of ways:

Custodial Sentence: Considering the gravity of the drug-related charges and Roger's
previous conviction, incarceration may be necessary. But the length ought to be decided
taking into account his guilty plea and any prospective rehabilitation.

Probation: The court may also impose probation, which would entail Roger meeting with a
probation officer on a regular basis, in addition to any jail time. This can offer continuous
supervision and support as he reintegrates into society.
Mandatory Drug Rehabilitation: One of Roger's sentences should be to participate in a
drug rehabilitation program under strict supervision. This program ought to be customized to
meet his unique requirements and overcome his addiction-related obstacles.

Community Service: In order to give back to the community and show that he is committed
to atoning for his actions, Roger might be asked to complete community service.

Counseling and Mental Health Support: Roger's rehabilitation plan should include access
to counseling and mental health support in light of his psychiatric assessment.

Restitution: In the event that Roger is found guilty of giving his nephew access to ketamine,
the court might order him to make amends or carry out community service that is especially
focused on helping people who are struggling with mental health issues.

The court should ultimately aim to impose a fair and impartial sentence that deals with
Roger's addiction, holds him responsible for his actions, protects the public, and provides him
with a road to recovery and reintegration into society. Along with respecting the rule of law
and justice, it should also take into account the wellbeing of his unborn child and the value of
keeping family ties.

Answer and Explanation

Solved by verified expert

Roger's case is complicated, with several drug-related charges and a number of variables that
should be taken into account when choosing a suitable course of action. Here are some
important things to think about when handling Roger's case:

Guilty Plea and Acceptance of Responsibility: Roger shows some regret and an admission
of guilt by choosing to enter a guilty plea to both drug-related charges. This is a benefit that
ought to be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. It indicates a readiness to
assist the legal system.

Prior Conviction: In 2015, Roger was found guilty of a drug-related offense. This past
criminal history points to a pattern of drug-related behavior. This does not mean that the court
should rule against him, but it does emphasize how critical it is to address his ongoing drug
addiction.

Drug Addiction and Rehabilitation: Important elements are Roger's admission of his drug
addiction and his stated wish to kick it. As part of his sentence, the court ought to think about
providing him with access to thorough drug rehabilitation programs. To address the
underlying causes of his addiction and provide him with tools for recovery, this may entail
counseling, detoxification, and continuing support.

Supplying Ketamine to Nephew: Roger acknowledged giving his mentally challenged

nephew Peter ketamine several times to help him deal with anxiety and depression. Even
though he might have wanted to assist Peter, it's important to consider the action's legality
and potential consequences. Legal professionals should investigate whether there are any
mitigating circumstances or if this is a distinct offense.

Pressure from Family Members: Roger says he was coerced into obtaining and selling
ketamine by family members. To ascertain the extent of his involvement and whether outside
influences shaped his actions, a thorough investigation into this allegation is warranted. If
coercion is proven, the sentence decision may be impacted.

Character References: Roger's past charitable contributions are highlighted in the pastor's
character reference, which suggests that his good traits might be taken into account when
determining the appropriate sentence. This indicates that he has the capacity to recover and
reintegrate into the community.

Psychiatric Assessment: It is important to closely review Roger's psychiatric assessment,

which indicated structure difficulties and a mild case of ADHD. It's critical to ascertain
whether his mental health issues contributed to his behavior. If so, his recovery plan ought to
take a customized approach to dealing with these issues.

Employment Offer: Roger has demonstrated his willingness to work and make a positive
contribution to society by accepting a recent job offer for peripatetic cleaning work at
multiple industrial sites across different locations. When drafting a sentence, this opportunity
should be taken into account because stable employment can play a big role in rehabilitation.
Step-by-step explanation

Taking into account these elements, the Crown Court might approach Roger's case in a
variety of ways:

Custodial Sentence: Considering the gravity of the drug-related charges and Roger's
previous conviction, incarceration may be necessary. But the length ought to be decided
taking into account his guilty plea and any prospective rehabilitation.

Probation: The court may also impose probation, which would entail Roger meeting with a
probation officer on a regular basis, in addition to any jail time. This can offer continuous
supervision and support as he reintegrates into society.

Mandatory Drug Rehabilitation: One of Roger's sentences should be to participate in a

drug rehabilitation program under strict supervision. This program ought to be customized to
meet his unique requirements and overcome his addiction-related obstacles.

Community Service: In order to give back to the community and show that he is committed
to atoning for his actions, Roger might be asked to complete community service.

Counseling and Mental Health Support: Roger's rehabilitation plan should include access
to counseling and mental health support in light of his psychiatric assessment.
Restitution: In the event that Roger is found guilty of giving his nephew access to ketamine,
the court might order him to make amends or carry out community service that is especially
focused on helping people who are struggling with mental health issues.

The court should ultimately aim to impose a fair and impartial sentence that deals with
Roger's addiction, holds him responsible for his actions, protects the public, and provides him
with a road to recovery and reintegration into society. Along with respecting the rule of law
and justice, it should also take into account the wellbeing of his unborn child and the value of
keeping family ties.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

1. The first charge involved the possession of cocaine, a Class A drug, with an estimated
value of £2,500.

- If you're found with a Class A or B drug and have a history of drug offences, you will be prosecuted.

The maximum sentences for possession of each class of drug are:

 up to 7 years in prison or an unlimited fine (or both) for a Class A drug

 (1) Subject to any regulations under section 7 of this Act for the time being in force, it
shall not be lawful for a person to have a controlled drug in his possession. (2) Subject
to section 28 of this Act and to subsection (4) below, it is an offence for a person to
have a controlled drug in his possession in contravention of subsection (1)

Nature of Offence Starting Point Sentencing Range

Possession of a small quantity of Fine Fine to Community Order

the drug for personal use

Possession of larger amount of Community Order Fine to 3 months Custody

the drug for personal use

NI Cases R v Hogg [1994] NI 258 R v Haveron and Others (7 July 1995)(Unreported) R. v.
McIlwaine [1998] NI 136 R. v. Murdock [2003] NICA 21 DPP’s Ref (No.2 of 2013)
(McKeown); R v Han Lin [2013] NICA 28 DPP’s Ref (Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 of 2015)(Hughes and
others) [2015] NICA 53

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (section 5(3))

2. The second charge pertained to possession with the intent to supply a Class B drug,
ketamine, valued at £8,000.

- Supplying drugs doesn’t just apply to dealers. If police suspect you're going to share drugs with your friends, this is still considered to be
supplying.

Being suspected of supplying drugs means you're likely to be charged. The amount of drugs found on you and whether you have a criminal record,
will be taken into account when a punishment is being decided.

The maximum sentences for intent to supply drugs are:

 up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both for a Class B or Class C drug

 (1) Subject to any regulations under section 7 of this Act for the time being in force, it
shall not be lawful for a person to have a controlled drug in his possession. (2) Subject
to section 28 of this Act and to subsection (4) below, it is an offence for a person to
have a controlled drug in his possession in contravention of subsection (1)

Nature of Offence Starting Point Sentencing Range

Sharing minimal quantity
between equals on a non-commercial basis Community Order Fine to Community Order

Small scale retail supply to

consumer 2 months Custody Community Order to 6
months Custody

NI Cases R v Hogg [1994] NI 258 R v Haveron and Others (7 July 1995) (Unreported) R v
Darragh & Anor [2001] NICA 7 R v McIlwaine [1998] NI 136 R v Murdock [2003] NICA
21 R v Ming Chen [2012] NICA 17 DPP’s Ref (No.2 of 2013)(McKeown); R v Han Lin
[2013] NICA 28 DPP’s Ref (Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 of 2015)(Hughes and others) [2015] NICA 53

If the offence is possession with intent to supply, supply, production or importation the
court will determine the offender’s culpability and the harm caused.

Culpability is a measure of the offender’s role in the offence.

Harm is indicative of the type and quantity of the drug concerned .

Tariff Principle

First offence

Second offence~ Class B-category 1-lesser role=Starting point 3 year’s custody

=Category range 2 years 6 months-5 years’ custody

History= Roger has a prior conviction dating back to 2015 for possession of Class A drugs.

Normally maximum 1/3 discount for plea at earliest opportunity. As per Art 5(4)(a) and Art 5(4)(b) of the CJA (NI) 2008 the court
must give reasons.

In R v Hogg [1994] NI 258 Hutton LCJ approved the guidance given by Lowry LCJ in R v
McCay [1975] NI 5 , in particular, that Class B drugs offending is less serious than that
concerning Class A drugs.

In the case of Queen v Daniel Raymond Dunlop, where the appeal against sentence supply of
Class A and Class B drugs and also have substantial criminal record of 61 previous
conviction, three related to possession of drugs(cannabis).

The decision in Matheson highlights the multi-layered nature of the public interest in the
rehabilitation of offenders. The beneficiaries of the rehabilitation of an offender are the public
at large, the offender and the offender’s social, community and family circles. Moreover there
will usually be some benefit to the economy. Issues of rehabilitation in the sentencing of an
offender will invariably entail a balancing exercise. Broadly this will normally involve the
balancing of rehabilitation, retribution and deterrence in the fact sensitive individual case. As
Mathieson makes clear rehabilitation can, in an appropriate case, attract determinative
weight. In the specific context of the drugs offences considered in the decision of this court in
McKeown and Han Lin a persuasive case for rehabilitation, supported by appropriate
evidence, can potentially warrant the conclusion that exceptionally a non-custodial disposal is
the appropriate sentencing course. The requirement of exceptionality can in principle be
satisfied in this way. It is appropriate to add that in the practice of the High Court there is an
increasing emphasis on the formulation of constructive bail orders
In the case of R v Hughes, possession of Class A&B drugs with intent to supply which is significant
quantities of Class A with high value.

It was submitted on behalf of this respondent that the learned trial judge in fact intended to
release him as time served because of his limited role in the operation but in doing so
miscalculated the period that he had spent in prison. If that was correct and a sentence of six
months or 12 months had been imposed that would unquestionably have been unduly lenient.
Taking into account double jeopardy we substitute for the sentence of three years apportioned
as six months in custody and 2½ years on licence a determinate custodial sentence of two
years comprising 12 months in custody and 12 months on licence.

In the case of R v Ming Chen, it was the offences of possession of Class B drugs, possession
of Class B drugs with intent to supply.

R v McIlwaine
He emphasized that the applicant had pleaded guilty at arraignment which is a most relevant
factor as is recognised by Article 33 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996,
which provision came into operation on 25 July 1997. The judicial attitude to drugs cases in
this jurisdiction is or ought to be well known. Those who are in possession with intent to
supply will face a virtually inevitable custodial sentence.

R v Slater
Background circumstances are relevant in any case but as was said in R v Slater and Scott 16
CAR(S) 870 at 877 "good character in offences of this gravity are of little importance".

In Article 10 of the Criminal Justice (NI) Order 2008, it states that where an offender
is appearing to be suffering from a mental disorder, the court should ask for a medical report
before imposing any form of sentence (specifically custodial sentence) on the convicted.

However, as stated in the case of DPP’s Reference, the court has stated that the reduction of
sentence that can be given by the court will be based on the circumstances of each case where
it has been suggested that the normal starting point of reduction will be as of 30%. The
practice of giving a discount was rightfully stated under Article 33 of the Criminal Justice
(NI) Order 1996 1in which the court must take into account when the plea was tendered by
the accused.

1
Criminal Justice (NI) Order 1996, Art 33
Further, as stated under Article 37(1) of the Order2, it states that the court may consider the
seriousness of an offence and take into consideration of the accused’s past convictions.

The Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 allows for the admission of previous
convictions as evidence in court. Roger's prior conviction for Class A drugs in 2015 is
admissible and may influence sentencing.

Legislations

Section 59(1) of the Sentencing Code

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
Section 5(3) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
Article 5(2) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008
Article 33 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
Section 73 of the Sentencing Code
Article 5(4)(b) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008

Cases

Queen v Daniel Raymond Dunlop (2019) NICA 72

R v Hogg [1994] NI 25
R v McCay [1975] NI 5
R v Ming Chen [2012] NICA 17
R v McIlwaine [1998] NI 136
R v Slater and Scott 16 CAR(S) 870 at 877
DPP’s Ref (No.2 of 2013)(McKeown)
R v Han Lin [2013] NICA 28

2
Criminal Justice (NI) Order 1996, Art 37(1)