The defendant was convicted after trial of possessing a large number of wraps of MDMA and ketamine with intent to supply. In evidence he had told the Court that he had purchased a small quantity of drugs for his own use. His evidence was that he was given a much larger quantity of drugs by his drug dealer than he had requested. He did not know why his drug dealer gave him a larger amount of drugs than he had asked for. Before entering a nightclub he did not check the drugs in his possession. He was searched by door staff who found approximately 40 wraps of drugs. They called the Police and the defendant was arrested.

At trial, his account was not accepted by the Jury and they returned a unanimous guilty verdict. According to the sentencing guidelines, he faced a sentence of approximately four years immediate custody. This is the usual sentence that a person convicted of street dealing with a significant role can expect.

The Crown said that given the Jury’s finding he was to be sentenced as a commercial supplier of drugs. The Judge initially agreed with him. Danny took further instructions from the client who changed his account and now stated that he had purchased the drugs with a group of four friends with who he was planning to share them, and he had no intention to supply them commercially. This meant that he had lied on oath. He was advised that he should not give this evidence as he would open himself up to a charge of perjury. Danny made representations on his behalf that he be sentenced on the basis of social supply which carries a sentencing range of high level community sentence to 3 years imprisonment.

The Judge found that he could not be sure that the defendant had intended to supply the drugs on a commercial basis and indicated that he would be sentenced on the basis of social supply. This was a great result considering he had been convicted of commercial supply and had admitted to lying on oath.

The case was adjourned for a pre-sentence report. The Judge had indicated that a sentence of immediate custody was likely and therefore the client was advised that he obtain as many character references as possible.  Ultimately he was sentence to just ten months imprisonment suspended for two years, with an order to perform 140 hours of unpaid work. Given that he had been convicted after trial of commercial supply this was an extraordinary result.