R v Jaheim Omar Andre Thomas

On 19 August 2025 in the Crown Court at Inner London before HHJ Cottage KC, the appellant (then aged 19) pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to one offence of possessing a controlled drug of Class B, namely cannabis, with intent to supply it to another. On 16 September 2025 he was sentenced by HHJ Richards to 12 months' detention in a young offender institution. The sentence was ordered to run consecutively to a sentence of 19 years' detention which the appellant was by that time serving for attempted murder and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. His co-defendant, Marvin Edokpolo, had pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to the same drug offence and was sentenced to 12 months' detention consecutive to his overall term of 22 years and 3 months for the same attempted murder. The appellant now appeals against sentence by leave of the Single Judge.

The appellant and Edokpolo were defendants in a trial for attempted murder at Snaresbrook Crown Court between 29 January 2024 and 22 May 2024. There were five defendants in total. Two of those defendants were remanded in custody, one of them being Edokpolo; the appellant was on bail.

At the close of the court day on 8 February 2024 Edokpolo made his way from the court to the prison van. As part of the process he was searched before boarding the van to go back to prison. During that search a Serco staff member noticed a wrap and some blocks fall out of the court papers belonging to Edokpolo. The Court Prison Liaison Officer was notified on the following morning and the drugs were seized. There were four packets of cannabis resin and a smaller clingfilm wrap of cannabis totalling approximately 388 grams. The appellant's fingerprints were subsequently found on the packaging. The prosecution case was that the appellant must have brought the items to the dock and handed them over to Edokpolo.

In interview, the appellant put forward a prepared statement saying that he had been approached by others and pressurised into taking the cannabis into court. He had been told by those who had asked him to take the drugs that they were aware of where his mother, brother and sister were living. He took this to be a threat. Out of fear he took the drugs into the court and placed them on the floor of the dock. The prosecution effectively accepted the appellant's account.

At the time that he was sentenced the appellant had six previous convictions. As we have indicated, in August 2024 he was sentenced to 19 years' detention for offences of attempted murder and possessing a firearm with intent. After slip rule hearings he received no separate penalty for two associated offences of possessing a bladed article in a public place and a further associated offence of violent disorder. Those offences took place on 1 March 2023. In October 2024 he received an absolute discharge for possession of a controlled drug of Class B, namely cannabis. That offence took place on 21 October 2022.

The judge sentenced the appellant without a pre-sentence report. We agree that a report was not necessary and is not now necessary. We have considered and received a prison report about the appellant's progress since his detention. His disciplinary record is very poor. The report cannot advance his appeal.

At the sentencing hearing, counsel for the prosecution directed the judge to the sentencing guideline on possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another. In relation to harm, the prosecution's view was that the offence fell into category 3 as it involved the supply of drugs in a custodial institution. As regards culpability the prosecution suggested that the appellant's role was somewhere between significant and lesser. A starting point for category 3 significant role offence is 1 year's custody; the category range is 26 weeks to 3 years' custody. The starting point for a category 3 lesser role offence is a high level community order; the category range is a low level community order to 26 weeks' custody.

On behalf of the appellant, Mr Wise, who appeared before the judge as he appears before us, agreed with the prosecution that the level of harm was category 3. He submitted that the appellant ought to be sentenced as having a lesser role as he had performed a specific function under direction and he had acted under pressure. The judge disagreed with both the prosecution and the defence positions. He stated that the smuggling of cannabis into a prison had to be punished severely. He said in relation to the appellant and Edokpolo:

The judge then made a reduction to 32 months on account of the appellant's young age and applied a 20 per cent reduction for the belated guilty plea which reduced the sentence to 25 months. He then made a final reduction to 1 year's detention to reflect the appellant's susceptibility to pressure from others and for totality in light of the sentence already being served.

The judge considered whether the sentence should run concurrently with, or consecutively to, the Snaresbrook sentence. He concluded that the seriousness of smuggling drugs into prison and the brazen way in which it was done, in the context of a very serious criminal trial, required that the 12-month sentence should be consecutive to the sentence that the appellant was already serving.

On behalf of the appellant Mr Wise makes essentially two submissions. First, he submits that the judge fell into error by taking a starting point of 4 years' detention, well in excess of the appropriate starting point of a high level community order, as set out in the sentencing guideline, without having justified doing so in the interests of justice. Secondly, the judge fell into error by both imposing a consecutive sentence and failing to consider a reduction of any consecutive sentence to reflect the totality principle given the sentence imposed at Snaresbrook Crown Court. He submits that if the attempted murder and the drug offence had been sentenced together, a consecutive sentence of such a length would have been unlikely.

We agree with the position of both parties at the sentencing hearing that the offence is properly categorised as falling within category 3 harm, as it concerned the supply of drugs in a custodial institution. As for culpability, we note that the prosecution accepted before the judge that the appellant had come under pressure. That was perhaps a generous analysis but in the circumstances we accept that the judge ought to have sentenced the appellant on the basis of a lesser role. That is what the judge initially indicated about the level of culpability.

Having taken the prison context into consideration in the categorisation of harm, and raised the offence to category 3 for that reason, the judge made an error in making a further upward adjustment to 4 years for the supply into a prison: this was double counting (R v O'Reilly [2023] EWCA Crim 1615; [2024] 1 Cr App R(S) 50 at [16-19]).

The prison context was not however the only factor making this a serious offence. The appellant committed the offence in a court building and indeed in the dock of a courtroom during criminal proceedings in which he was a defendant. The location of the offence is a separate and different factor to prison supply. As this Court has previously said, the decision to commit an offence in such a location portrays the upmost contempt for the rule of law (R v Arshad [2025] EWCA Crim 1456 at [10]). We are in no doubt that the offence in a court building was a very significant aggravating factor, and elevated the seriousness of the offence to such a degree that an upward adjustment above the category range was called for. The judge's starting point of 4 years was, however, the starting point under the guideline for a leading role and so was manifestly excessive. An appropriate notional sentence, before discount for plea, was 30 weeks. Applying a 20 per cent reduction for the guilty plea, we reach a sentence of 24 weeks. The appellant was 17 years old at the date of the offence and 19 at the date of sentence. Having regard to his young age, we reduce the sentence to 16 weeks.

The offence arose out of facts that were unrelated to the Snaresbrook offences. In such circumstances the judge was entitled to impose a consecutive sentence with little reduction for totality. Given that the offence took place in a court building while the appellant was a defendant, we are in no doubt that the judge was correct to do so and we reject Mr Wise's submissions that the sentence should have run concurrently with the sentence for attempted murder.

For these reasons, we quash the sentence of 12 months and substitute a sentence of 16 weeks' detention in a young offender institution which will be served consecutively to the sentence of 19 years for attempted murder.

To this extent, this appeal is allowed. It remains for us to thank Mr Wise for his helpful submissions.