R. v Steven Orrin

MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: On 27th August 2004 at Norwich Crown Court, the appellant Steven Orrin pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a class A drug, namely ecstasy (MDMA). He was sentenced on 1st October 2004 by Mr Recorder Forster to 18 months' imprisonment. He appeals against that sentence by leave of the single judge, Wakerley J.

The brief facts of the case were that on Saturday 27th March 2004 there was a disco in a common room at the University of Anglia. At about 10.15 pm the police were summoned after a person who had been at the disco spoke to a doorman. The appellant was spoken to and searched. He was found to have 9½ ecstasy tablets in the front pocket of his jeans. In the same pocket there was a chewing gum packet with a further 23 tablets. When cautioned the appellant said that the 32½ tablets were not his. When it was pointed out that they had been retrieved from his pocket the appellant said they were for his personal use. The tablets were valued at between £162.50 to £325.

When interviewed the appellant said it had been the third time that he had been to the University over a two year period. He said he had been drunk and had gone to the University because of a friend's birthday. He said he had bought 40 ecstasy tablets from a friend just before he went into the University for 80p each. He said he had used 7½ tablets before his arrest and that the rest would have been consumed by him over a period of time. He said he could quite easily go into double figures by the end of the night.

The pre-sentence report stated that, according to the appellant, he and a friend had been offered eighty tablets and his friend had split with him the 40 tablets that the appellant said he had. The appellant explained the tablets were being handed round the group of friends. Nobody wanted them, they were dropped and as a result the appellant picked them up.

There was a pre-sentence report. It referred to the history of alcohol abuse and drug taking on the part of the appellant and indeed he has previous convictions involving illicit use of drugs, including ecstasy.

There were before the judge testimonials as to his personality and his employment and the financial repercussions of a prison sentence and concern as to the impact of a prison sentence on his seven-year-old son and the appellant's ability to maintain a relationship with him.

The appeal to us today has been presented on the basis that a custodial sentence was indeed appropriate for this offence. It could not be argued that it was not, having regard in particular to the previous convictions of this appellant and the circumstances of this offence which involved his having with him on University grounds, among what can be assumed to be a large number of young people, a relatively large number of ecstasy pills. There was an obvious risk that some of those pills would come into the possession or be supplied to other young people. Of course he pleaded guilty to and he is to be sentenced on the basis that he had no intention to supply, but nonetheless the risk of those pills coming into the hands of other young people was there.

It is argued that 18 months' imprisonment was outside the range for a conviction of this kind, particularly after a plea of guilty. On the basis of the authorities which we have been referred to, and in particular the case of Lutzo (1989) 11 Cr.App.R (S) 495, we accept that that submission is well founded notwithstanding the increased appreciation of the dangers of ecstasy and of them falling into the hands of young people. We are unable to accept that a sentence of six to eight months however would have been sufficient. Having regard to the authorities to which we have been referred, we think it is appropriate in this case to reduce the sentence to ten months and that sentence will be substituted for that of 18 months' imprisonment. To that extent this appeal succeeds.