Mitigation for “Steps Taken to Address Addiction” Requires a Causal Link to the Offending (Drug Supply Sentencing)

1. Introduction

In R v Salmon [2026] EWCA Crim 1201, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (Lady Justice Yip, Mrs Justice Farbey, Mrs Justice Thornton) dismissed an appeal against a total sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment for drugs and proceeds offences.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to: (i) possession of a class A drug with intent to supply (Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, s 5(3)), (ii) possession of a class B drug (s 5(2)), and (iii) possession of criminal property (Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s 329(1)(c)). The principal issue on appeal was whether the sentencing judge had wrongly failed to treat the appellant’s claimed efforts to address addiction/offending behaviour as mitigation under the relevant Sentencing Council guideline.

2. Summary of the Judgment

  • The Court held the Recorder was entitled to find that the guideline mitigation for “steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour” was not available on the facts.
  • The case involved a commercial supply operation in which the appellant had an operational management function and an expectation of significant financial advantage.
  • A post-sentence prison report suggesting past class A drug use did not establish that the offending was driven by addiction; the report also indicated financial motivation and possible minimisation of culpability.
  • Taking all circumstances together, the sentence of 46 months was not manifestly excessive; the appeal was dismissed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court engaged with R v Mahon [2017] EWCA Crim 102, relied on by the appellant. In Mahon, the Court of Appeal treated substance misuse as materially connected to the offending (burglary), supporting the proposition that addiction (and steps to address it) may mitigate where it helps explain why the offence was committed.

In R v Salmon, the Court distinguished Mahon on the central factual question of nexus: this was not acquisitive crime to feed a habit or intoxication-related disorder; it was the running of a supply operation for profit. The precedent therefore informed the Court’s approach by clarifying that addiction-related mitigation depends on a demonstrated connection between the misuse and the offending behaviour.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three linked steps:

  1. Identify the guideline mitigation and its intended scope. The Court quoted the guideline mitigating factor: determination and/or demonstration of steps having been taken to address addiction or offending behaviour. It also relied on the guideline’s explanatory text: a reduction may be justified where offending is driven by or closely associated with drugs/alcohol abuse (illustrated by examples such as stealing to feed a habit or alcohol-fuelled disorder/violence).
  2. Apply the scope to the Recorder’s findings. The Recorder had sentenced on the basis that the appellant was selling crack cocaine to users, had a management role, and was earning well. There was evidence of cannabis use, but (at sentence) no evidence of crack addiction. The Court held the Recorder was entitled to conclude that the guideline mitigation did not apply, because the offence context was commercial supply for gain, not offending explained by addiction.
  3. Consider new material without re-sentencing in substance. The appeal court considered a prison report obtained after the hearing. Although it recorded the appellant asserting regular crack cocaine and heroin use, the report also supported an assessment of financially motivated offending and noted possible minimisation. Read as a whole, it did not establish that addiction drove the offending; and, in any event, the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The Court also addressed (briefly) the submission that the starting point was too high. It did not accept that the Recorder’s approach (significant role, category 3, starting point 4 years) rendered the outcome excessive, particularly given the quantities, the operational set-up, and the management function.

3.3 Impact

The decision is likely to be cited in two recurring sentencing disputes in drugs cases:

  • Addiction mitigation is conditional, not automatic. Evidence that an offender uses drugs, even class A drugs, does not itself trigger a reduction; the court will look for a credible and evidenced link showing the offending was driven by, or closely associated with, addiction.
  • Commercial supply roles narrow the space for “addiction-driven” arguments. Where a defendant is found to be operating for profit (especially with a management role), courts may treat addiction narratives with caution unless supported by compelling evidence that the supply activity was meaningfully propelled by dependence rather than financial advantage.
  • Post-sentence rehabilitation evidence has limits on appeal. Positive custody behaviour is commendable but may be viewed as expected; and late material must still demonstrate relevance to culpability or mitigation in the sense recognised by guidelines and appellate principles.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Manifestly excessive”: the appeal court does not re-sentence simply because it might have imposed a different term; it intervenes only if the sentence is outside the range of reasonable outcomes.
  • “Significant role” (drug guideline): a higher culpability bracket indicating more than street-level dealing—typically involving some responsibility, influence, or function within a chain. Here, the Recorder described an “operational management function” and expectation of significant gain.
  • Guideline mitigation for “steps taken to address addiction/offending behaviour”: it is aimed at cases where treating the underlying addiction is relevant to why the offence occurred and to reducing reoffending risk—classic examples are acquisitive offences to fund a habit, or offences committed while intoxicated. It is not a general reward for self-improvement disconnected from the offence.
  • “Nexus” between addiction and offending: a causal or close explanatory connection. The court looked for evidence that addiction was a driver of the supply operation, not merely present in the offender’s life.

5. Conclusion

R v Salmon [2026] EWCA Crim 1201 reinforces that the sentencing reduction for “steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour” depends on a demonstrated link between the addiction and the offending. In a case characterised as a profit-driven, managed crack supply operation, the Court of Appeal upheld the Recorder’s conclusion that the guideline mitigation did not apply and confirmed that the resulting 46-month sentence was not manifestly excessive.