R v Alan Anthony Croft [2025] EWCA Crim 1609

This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2025] EWCA Crim 1609Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Tuesday 11 November 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMR JUSTICE SOOLEMR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY
Between
REXCrownV
Between
ALAN ANTHONY CROFT__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MR J WEATE (SOLICITOR ADVOCATE) appeared for Applicant._________JUDGMENT
[1]On 3 April 2025 in the Crown Court at Liverpool, before His Honour Judge Harris, the appellant (then aged 49) having pleaded guilty to four offences, was sentenced to a total of 7 years 10 months' imprisonment, made up as follows: Under an indictment relating to offences on 8 October 2024: Count 1, possession with intent to supply cocaine (a Class A drug), 4 years 6 months. Count 2, possession with intent to supply heroin (a Class A drug), 4 years 6 months concurrent. Count 3, possession of cannabis, 1 month concurrent. For an offence on 14 April 2024, which was committed to the Crown Court for sentence: Count 1, possession with intent to supply cocaine (a Class A drug), 3 years 4 months' imprisonment consecutive.[2]The appellant appeals against that sentence with leave of the Single Judge.[3]The facts may be briefly stated as follows. On 14 April 2024, at approximately 11.00pm, police officers were travelling along a road in Tranmere when they saw a female exit an alley gate and walk away. The officers asked the female to stop. She refused to do so, instead entering a house and closing the front door behind her. Officers approached the front door and could see numerous people inside, including a male whom PC Ward knew to be the appellant. The appellant was bent over and fidgeting with his waistband. A short while later the door opened, and officers noted an overwhelming smell of cannabis coming from inside the address. Officers entered the address and found the appellant who was nervous and fidgeting. During the search officers found a Samsung mobile phone belonging to the appellant which was ringing repeatedly. Officers also found £20 in cash.[4]Having seen the appellant fidgeting with his waistband earlier, a strip-search was conducted and a round plastic container was found on the appellant which contained a large quantity of individual wraps of crack cocaine. The crack cocaine was in 24 knotted plastic packages of approximately 0.13 grams each, totalling 3.05 grams (count 1). The individual wraps were £10 street deals with a total value of £240. There were incoming messages on the appellant's phone requesting the supply of heroin and cocaine.[5]The appellant was interviewed on 15 April 2024. He provided "no comment" responses. He was released under investigation.[6]On 8 October 2024, whilst the appellant remained under investigation, at approximately 12.30 pm officers in plain clothes mobile patrol in Tranmere saw a male who appeared to them to be a drug user run and get into the back of a taxi. The officers caught up to the taxi which eventually stopped. They spoke to the rear seat passenger who identified himself as the appellant. Officers could see items in the appellant's right hand and detained him for the purposes of a search. As the appellant exited the taxi there was a brief struggle, during which he was trying to conceal an item within his clothing. The item in the appellant's right hand was a ball-shaped package containing multiple wraps of crack cocaine (count 1) and diamorphine (count 2). The appellant was arrested and made no reply to caution. Officers also recovered a quantity of cannabis from the appellant's address, which is consistent with personal use (count 3).[7]The quantity and valuation of drugs seized was as follows: 13 plastic knotted packages of crack cocaine each weighing 0.06 grams making a total of 0.76 grams. Those were £5 deals with a total street value of £65; 35 knotted plastic packages of crack cocaine, each weighing 0.14 grams, a total of 4.9 grams. Those equated to £10 deals with a total street value of £350. A total of 21 packages of diamorphine, weighing a total of 2.8 grams, five of those were £20 deals, each at 2.3 grams and had a total street value of £100. Sixteen of them were £10 deals with a street value of £160. The total estimated street value of the drugs seized from the appellant that day was £675.[8]The appellant was interviewed on the same day and again provided "no comment" responses to all questions asked of him.[9]The appellant had 66 previous convictions for 163 offences, spanning from 15 October 1986 to 24 September 2024. These included 27 drug offences. He received 18 months' imprisonment in 1997 for an offence of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs. The index offences were committed in breach of nine conditional discharges for drug possession offences imposed in 2024.[10]In sentencing the appellant, the judge noted the appellant's basis of plea, which said that the appellant had become involved in street dealing because of a very long-standing drug habit that had led to the accumulation of debt. The judge considered that the offending in relation to supply fell into category 3 significant role of the relevant guidelines, which has a starting point of 4 years 6 months and a range of 3 years 6 months to 7 years. Taking into account the aggravating features, including the fact that two types of drugs were supplied, the failure to comply with court orders, the history of offending and the fact that the offences were committed in breach of nine conditional discharges, the judge considered that the notional sentences before reduction for plea were: 5 years for the April 2024 offence. The plea for that offence was entered at the first opportunity and therefore a discount of one-third applied resulting in a sentence of 3 years 4 months; 6 years for counts 1 and 2 for the October 2024 offending. The discount for plea, which was not entered at the first opportunity, was 25 % resulting in a sentence of 4 years 6 months.

The judge considered the Totality Principles and said as follows:

"I have to reflect totality, to ensure the sentence is just and proportionate. I note also that you were supplying drugs to which you are addicted, but the scale of your supplying and the fact that there are two separate sets of offending mean that there has to be, in accordance with normal principles, consecutive sentences."
Accordingly, the judge imposed these sentences to be served consecutively giving rise to a total of 7 years 10 months.[12]The short ground of appeal is that the judge, whilst making reference to Totality Principles, failed to apply them in that no downwards adjustment was made once the consecutive sentences were added together resulting in a sentence that was manifestly excessive.[13]Mr Weate, who appears before us today, made submissions along the same grounds. We agree with that submission. The judge did apply Totality Principles when imposing concurrent sentences for counts 1 and 2 of the October offending as well as in not making any separate order in respect of the breaches of the conditional discharges. However, having decided to impose consecutive sentences for the two sets of offending, as he was entitled to do, the judge ought to have gone on to consider whether any further downwards adjustment was due in order to ensure that the sentence imposed was just and proportionate and reflected the overall criminality involved.[14]There is no fixed way of structuring such consecutive sentences. The judge could have applied a proportionate downwards adjustment to both sentences before adding them together. We note that the judge refers to having reduced the starting point for the October offending. However, given that the notional sentence before reduction for plea was 6 years, it is difficult to discern any significant downward adjustment at that stage. More significantly no adjustment appears to have been made to the notional sentence of 5 years for count 1 of the April offending. In these circumstances one would ordinarily expect an adjustment to be made once the individual consecutive sentences are added up. This appears not to have been done in this case.[15]The offending in this case, whilst occurring over two separate incidents, was very similar in nature, involving street dealing at a relatively modest level and arose out of a long-standing drug habit. Whilst none of that in anyway diminishes the seriousness of the offending, these are matters properly to be taken into account in determining whether the overall sentence was just and proportionate. We consider that an overall notional sentence of 11 years before discount for plea is manifestly excessive for such offending. The overall sentence of 7 years 10 months after discount for plea is not justified in the circumstances of this case. A downwards adjustment from that sentence is both warranted in accordance with Totality Principles.[16]Having regard to all of the circumstances, we consider that a downwards adjustment of 18 months, resulting in an overall sentence of 6 years 4 months, would be just and proportionate and would properly reflect the overall criminality involved. We achieve that result by quashing the sentences of 4 years 6 months under counts 1 and 2 of the October offending and substituting sentences of 3 years concurrent on each (4 years before discount for plea). All other orders remain the same, resulting in a total sentence of 6 years 4 months. To that extent this appeal is allowed. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk