Mechita: Purity, Quantity and Cash Can Evidence a “Leading Role”; Totality Permits Uplift of the Lead Concurrent Sentence and Consecutive Sentencing for Distinct Offending

Citation: R v Mechita [2025] EWCA Crim 1358

Court: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Judgment date: 7 October 2025

Judge: Lord Justice Lewis (giving the judgment of the Court)

Introduction

This appeal against sentence arose from a suite of drug supply and money-laundering offences connected to a search of a West London address on 3 August 2022. The appellant, Omar Mechita (then 33), had evaded arrest since a 2019 drugs-related shooting for which he was later convicted of conspiracy to murder and sentenced in December 2022 to 20 years’ imprisonment. The subsequent search uncovered 341g of cocaine (88% purity), just over 1kg of ketamine, 18.8g of cannabis, counterfeit currency valued at £32,640, £20,590 in sterling, €1,080, multiple phones/SIMs, and extensive drugs paraphernalia.

In November 2024, the Crown Court sentenced Mr Mechita for possession with intent to supply cocaine (lead offence), ketamine and cannabis, as well as possession of criminal property (sterling and euros) and possession of counterfeit currency. The judge imposed three years and two months’ imprisonment for the cocaine count, with all other sentences concurrent to that term but consecutive to the existing 20-year sentence for conspiracy to murder.

The appeal (with leave of the single judge) challenged the sentencing judge’s categorisation of the appellant as occupying a “leading role” under the Sentencing Council Drug Offences Guideline, the starting points selected for cocaine and ketamine, and the approach to the money laundering counts. A further argument queried whether totality was breached by making the new sentences consecutive to the earlier 20-year term.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that:

The sentencing judge was entitled to find a “leading role” for the cocaine offence based on aggregate indicators: the quantity and high purity of the cocaine, the volume of other drugs, the packaging and paraphernalia evidencing commercial supply, and the significant cash found. High purity permitted an inference of close links to source; the overall picture supported directing or organising supply on a commercial scale and an expectation of substantial financial advantage.
The elevated starting point of 9.5 years for cocaine (between Category 3 and Category 2) was justified, as was the subsequent reduction for delay and mitigation and the maximum reduction for guilty pleas, yielding three years and two months.
Even if the role were “significant” rather than “leading,” appropriate upward adjustment to reflect quantity and then, critically, to reflect the totality of concurrent offending (before applying the guilty plea reduction) would still have placed the sentence in the same region, such that the end result was not manifestly excessive.
For money laundering of the £20,590, the judge was entitled to treat culpability as high and to adopt a Category 5 starting point of three years’ imprisonment, then reduce for mitigation and plea to one year. The same structured approach to starting points and reductions was upheld across related counts (euros and counterfeit currency).
There was no breach of totality in directing that the drug and laundering sentences run consecutively to the earlier sentence for conspiracy to murder: the offences were different in kind and committed at different times, making a consecutive structure appropriate in principle.

Overall, the court found the sentence “just, proportionate and merited.”

Analysis

Precedents and Guidance Relied Upon

While the judgment did not cite case authorities by name, it applied and elucidated the following established frameworks:

Sentencing Council Drug Offences Guideline: The role assessment (leading/significant) and drug weight categories (here, cocaine Category 2 and 3 comparators; ketamine Category 2) drove starting points and ranges. The court underscored that “leading role” can be inferred from circumstantial indicia: commercial-scale operation, closeness to source, and substantial gain.
Sentencing Council guideline on money laundering: Harm is assessed by value; culpability informs the starting point. The court endorsed a Category 5 starting point of three years for laundering £20,590, given high culpability on these facts, then reductions for mitigation and plea.
Totality and concurrency/consecutivity principles: The court affirmed orthodox practice: concurrent sentences for related counts may require uplifting the lead count to represent overall criminality, and separate, distinct-in-kind offences committed at different times may properly attract consecutive terms without breaching totality.
Appellate review threshold: The court applied the familiar “manifestly excessive” standard and found it unmet.

Legal Reasoning

1) “Leading role” may be inferred from purity, quantity and context

The guideline lists non-exhaustive indicators of a leading role: directing/organising commercial-scale supply, close links to source, and expectation of substantial financial advantage. The court held that, taken together, the 341g of cocaine at 88% purity, the 1kg of ketamine, the elaborate packaging paraphernalia, multiple phones/SIMs, and substantial cash created a robust evidential picture of commercial-scale dealing. High purity supported an inference of closeness to source (given typical dilution before street sale), and the money evidenced substantial gain. Notably, the court rejected the suggestion that the absence of text messages, ledgers or telecoms evidence prevented a finding of a leading role: circumstantial indicators sufficed.

2) Selecting and adjusting starting points

For cocaine:

Category 3 (indicative 150g) has a starting point of 8 years 6 months; Category 2 (indicative 1kg) has 11 years. With 341g, the judge pitched the starting point at 9.5 years, between those anchors.
He then applied a substantial reduction for delay and other mitigation (to 6 years 2 months) and the maximum one-third discount for guilty pleas (to 3 years 2 months).

For ketamine (Category 2, leading role):

Starting point 6 years; with reductions for delay/mitigation and plea to 2 years.

For cannabis:

Starting point 1 year; reduced to 4 months after mitigation and plea.

The Court of Appeal expressly approved the cocaine and ketamine starting points and reductions as within a proper sentencing discretion.

3) The counterfactual: even a “significant role” would not reduce the overall sentence

The appellant argued for “significant role.” The court accepted that, on a significant-role analysis for cocaine Category 3, the notional starting point would be 4 years 6 months for 150g, which would require an upward shift to around 6 years for 341g. After a one-third reduction for mitigation, that yields 4 years, and after a one-third plea reduction, 2 years 8 months for the cocaine count alone.

However, because all the drug and property counts were concurrent, the court emphasised that the lead count must reflect the overall criminality. That necessarily entails an upward totality adjustment of the lead concurrent term before applying the plea reduction, bringing the sentence “inevitably” back into the region of three years and two months. Thus, even on the appellant’s preferred role categorisation, the impugned sentence could not be said to be manifestly excessive.

4) Money laundering: high culpability and Category 5 starting point

For possession of criminal property (£20,590), the judge took a Category 5 starting point of three years and regarded culpability as high on these facts. The Court of Appeal agreed. Contrary to the “double counting” argument, the court treated the laundering as a distinct harm addressed by its own guideline structure: the quantum of criminal property and the appellant’s conduct justified the starting point, which was then properly reduced for mitigation and plea to one year. A similar structured method was applied to the euros (starting point one year; reduced to four months) and to the counterfeit currency (starting point three years; reduced to one year).

5) Totality and the propriety of a consecutive sentence alongside an earlier 20-year term

The court rejected the totality challenge. The drug and property offences were different in kind and committed at different times from the earlier conspiracy to murder. As a matter of principle, a consecutive sentence was appropriate. The judge also expressly did not treat the earlier conviction as an aggravating factor (although he could have), and he gave a substantial reduction for the delay in prosecuting the drug/property offences. The overall term was neither disproportionate nor unjust.

Impact and Significance

This judgment carries several practical and doctrinal implications:

Role assessment without comms evidence: Prosecutors need not produce telecoms or ledger evidence to establish a “leading role” where the surrounding circumstances—high purity, significant quantities, commercial packaging, and substantial cash—together support commercial-scale supply, closeness to source, and substantial gain. Defence submissions focused on the absence of messages or ledgers may struggle if circumstantial indicia are strong.
Purity as an evidential proxy: The court’s willingness to infer closeness to source from consistently high purity is a clear signal that laboratory analysis can be probative not merely of harm/weight but of role.
Totality in concurrent sentencing: Where multiple offences are made concurrent, the lead offence can and often should be uplifted to represent the overall criminality, and that uplift is to be factored before applying the guilty plea reduction. This helps avoid under-punishment when concurrency would otherwise dilute the gravity of combined offending.
Consecutivity for distinct-in-kind offending at different times: There is no totality error in imposing a consecutive term for later, unrelated crimes—even when the prior sentence is substantial (here, 20 years). This reassures courts that separation in kind and time remains a strong indicator for consecutive structuring.
Laundering as distinct wrongdoing: Harm from underlying drug supply does not exhaust the gravity of laundering. Category and culpability for laundering should be assessed on their own terms by value and conduct; “double counting” objections will not succeed where guideline steps are distinctly applied.
Appellate restraint: The “manifestly excessive” threshold continues to insulate reasoned, guideline-compliant sentencing decisions that fall within a permissible range, particularly where judges have transparently balanced category, role, delay, mitigation, and plea.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Leading vs Significant Role (Drug Offences Guideline):
- Leading role typically involves directing or organising commercial supply, close links to the source of drugs, and expectation of substantial financial advantage.
- Significant role involves operational or management functions more than mere couriering, but without directing the operation.
- The court can infer role from circumstantial indicators (quantity, purity, packaging, cash) even without messages/ledgers.
Categories by Quantity (Cocaine):
- Category 3: indicative 150g; starting point 8 years 6 months (for leading role).
- Category 2: indicative 1kg; starting point 11 years (for leading role).
- Where the actual weight sits between categories (341g here), a midpoint or tailored starting point may be appropriate.
Totality Principle: The overall sentence must be just and proportionate to the total offending. For multiple concurrent counts, the lead count may be uplifted to capture aggregate criminality. Distinct offences committed at different times may properly attract consecutive sentences.
Concurrent vs Consecutive: Concurrent sentences run at the same time (often for related conduct). Consecutive sentences run one after the other (often for separate incidents or different-in-kind offences).
Reduction for Guilty Plea: A maximum one-third discount applies where a plea is entered at the earliest opportunity. The discount is applied after the judge identifies the appropriate sentence (including any totality-driven uplift) for the offence(s).
Money Laundering Sentencing: Harm is typically quantified by the value of criminal property; categories set starting points. Culpability (e.g., sophistication, role, knowledge) drives placement within the range. Here, £20,590 with high culpability justified a Category 5 starting point of three years before reductions.
Manifestly Excessive (Appellate Standard): The Court of Appeal will interfere with sentence only if it falls outside the range of reasonable decisions—i.e., is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Key Practical Takeaways for Practitioners

Expect courts to draw leading-role inferences from a holistic evidential picture. High purity is especially persuasive as a proxy for closeness to source.
In concurrent, multi-count drug cases, be prepared for an uplift to the lead count to reflect overall criminality before the guilty plea discount is applied. This can neutralise arguments that a lower role categorisation should drastically reduce the final sentence.
When offences are temporally and substantively distinct from an existing sentence (e.g., later drug/laundering offending versus an earlier conspiracy to murder), consecutive terms are orthodox and do not breach totality if the overall result remains proportionate.
“Double counting” objections in laundering cases should be scrutinised against the separate structure of the money-laundering guideline; the value of criminal property and culpability can independently justify robust starting points.
Delay can warrant substantial mitigation where attributable to the process rather than the offender, but it will not typically overcome a well-structured guideline sentence.

Conclusion

Mechita confirms two points of practical importance. First, role assessment in drug supply is evidence-sensitive but not evidence-limited: the absence of digital communications does not preclude a finding of “leading role” where purity, quantity, paraphernalia, and cash combine to indicate commercial-scale dealing, closeness to source, and substantial gain. Second, in multi-count cases sentenced concurrently, courts may uplift the lead count for totality before applying the plea discount, ensuring the sentence reflects the full criminality. Alongside these clarifications, the judgment reaffirms that distinct-in-kind offending at different times may properly attract consecutive sentencing, and that laundering of substantial sums warrants independent guideline-based punishment.

The Court of Appeal’s refusal to interfere underscores a disciplined, guideline-led approach: calibrated starting points, transparent adjustments for delay and mitigation, maximum discounts for timely guilty pleas, and principled application of totality. The result—three years and two months for the drug/property suite, consecutive to a prior 20-year term—was neither excessive nor disproportionate, but just and warranted on the facts.