R v Sohna [2025] EWCA Crim 1258: Liaison and Diversion reports may obviate the need for a PSR where immediate custody is inevitable; appellate deference to Newton findings and “significant role” based on message‑led evidence

Introduction

This commentary examines the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision in R v Sohna [2025] EWCA Crim 1258, handed down on 7 August 2025 by Sir Robin Spencer. The Court refused a renewed application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against a sentence of six years’ imprisonment imposed by HHJ Sampson at Nottingham Crown Court on 13 December 2023.

The case arose from guilty pleas to multiple counts of being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs of Classes A (diamorphine, cocaine, MDMA), B (cannabis, ketamine), and C (diazepam), in the period 23 December 2020 to 30 September 2021. The pleas were entered on a basis not accepted by the prosecution, leading to a contested Newton hearing. The trial judge found the applicant acted in a significant role in Class A supply (category 2 under the Sentencing Council guideline), set an 8‑year after‑trial total, and then applied 25% credit for the guilty pleas to reach six years.

The renewed application invited the Court of Appeal to hold the sentence manifestly excessive, contending among other things that a pre‑sentence report (PSR) should have been ordered because this was a first custodial sentence, and challenging the judge’s categorisation and findings. The Court rejected these arguments.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal refused both the extension of time and leave to appeal. Although there was no good reason for the substantial delay (198 days out of time for the sentence appeal, plus 19 days out of time to renew after the single judge’s refusal), the Court nonetheless considered the merits and found no arguable ground.

Key points include:

The sentencing judge properly conducted and reasoned the Newton hearing; the findings of fact stood and were not amenable to appellate disturbance.
The categorisation of the Class A offending as category 2 with a significant role (starting point: eight years after trial) was appropriate in light of the evidence—particularly the communications evidencing awareness of scale, expectation of significant financial gain, involvement of others, and facilitation of supply, including into Scotland.
The 25% guilty plea credit following the Newton hearing was appropriate given the mixed outcome on the contested factual basis.
A full PSR was not necessary: the judge had a Liaison and Diversion (L&D) court report covering vulnerability and relevant personal background, and immediate custody was inevitable on the facts.
Applying totality and mitigation did not render the sentence manifestly excessive; the six‑year term fell squarely within the guideline framework after the 25% reduction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment does not cite prior authorities by name. Instead, it applies well‑established principles drawn from:

Newton hearing jurisprudence (the familiar procedure for resolving disputed factual bases following a guilty plea).
The Sentencing Council’s definitive guidelines for drug supply/being concerned in supply, including role assessment and starting points for Class A offences.
The Sentencing Council totality guideline.
The guilty plea guideline, including treatment of credit where a Newton hearing is required to resolve material factual disputes.
Statutory provisions on pre‑sentence reports under the Sentencing Code, including the court’s discretion not to obtain a PSR where it is unnecessary in the circumstances.

The Court’s approach aligns with the settled position that appellate courts are slow to interfere with Newton findings absent clear error, and that the sentencing judge’s application of the guidelines is owed deference where the reasoning is coherent and within the range.

Legal Reasoning

1) Extension of time: merits and delay

The applicant was 198 days out of time to initiate the sentence appeal and 19 days out of time to renew after the single judge’s refusal. The Court noted the lack of any good reason for such delays. Nevertheless, it considered the merits. Because no arguable ground was identified, both the extension and leave were refused. This reflects the orthodox approach: in the absence of merit, extensions will be refused even if the Court has looked past delay to ensure no injustice arises.

2) Newton hearing findings: high appellate deference

The applicant’s basis of plea was rejected in part; the prosecution’s case was also pared back in part. The judge heard extensive live evidence over a day and made clear findings:

The applicant’s messages evidenced involvement with around a kilogram of heroin and other drugs and a plan to deal larger quantities.
In January 2021, he was actively trying to establish himself in the trade, sought significant profit, and involved others (including two associates willing to deal in Scotland).
He was aware of the scale of Voce’s operation and facilitated supply into Scotland, though there was limited proof of high realised profits and no direct link to the May 2021 Newark seizures.

The Court of Appeal held there was “no basis for challenging the judge’s findings.” This underlines the well‑trodden principle: Newton determinations are fact‑sensitive and appellate courts do not readily re‑evaluate unless there has been a material misdirection or findings are unsustainable.

3) Guideline categorisation: category 2 harm with a “significant role” for Class A

Taking the Class A counts together, the judge adopted category 2 harm and a “significant role,” identifying:

Awareness of the broader operation (Voce’s large‑scale dealing) and the volumes contemplated (e.g., kilo quantities, discussion of cutting agents and crack production).
Expectation of significant financial gain.
Involvement of others (two Gambian associates) and direct communication/facilitation to buyers, including in Scotland.
A working partnership with Edwards‑Stuart: “We will make a good team” / “We taking over.”

The Class A starting point of eight years for category 2, significant role, is orthodox. The Court accepted the judge’s calibration: although “talk” of large‑scale operations outstripped realised gains and there was no evidence of supplies after January 2021, the offence of being concerned in supply captures facilitation, arrangement, and participation in a supply enterprise. The applicant’s communications went beyond mere bravado; they evidenced operational involvement and the use of others to advance supply into multiple locations.

4) Guilty plea credit following a Newton hearing: 25% maintained

The judge allowed 25% credit despite the disputed basis of plea. This reflects the principle that the credit may be retained at or near full where it was reasonable and necessary to resolve material factual issues via a Newton hearing, particularly where elements of the defence position were accepted. The Court saw no error in this approach.

5) PSR not required where a Liaison and Diversion report suffices and custody is inevitable

The applicant argued a PSR should have been obtained because this was his first custodial sentence. The Court noted that the judge had a Liaison and Diversion court report by a qualified healthcare professional, addressing vulnerability and providing background akin to a PSR. Importantly, a substantial immediate custodial sentence was inevitable on these facts. In those circumstances, a formal PSR was unnecessary—both at the time and now.

This is a practical clarification: where the court possesses adequate, reliable information about the defendant (including vulnerability, personal circumstances, and rehabilitative context) and the guidelines point inexorably to immediate custody, a PSR may properly be dispensed with.

6) Totality, mitigation, and proportionality

The judge balanced aggravation and mitigation:

Mitigation included previous good character, strong references, personal and mental health difficulties, and community‑focused musical work.
Aggravating features included multi‑drug, multi‑location involvement, partnership with known dealers, involvement of others, and an expectation of substantial gain.

Applying totality, the judge set an after‑trial term of eight years and then reduced by 25% for plea to six years. The Court found the result comfortably within the guideline range and not manifestly excessive.

Impact

PSR practice: The judgment underscores that a PSR is not a procedural box‑tick; courts may rely on a Liaison and Diversion assessment where it adequately canvasses vulnerability and background, and immediate custody is unavoidable. Practitioners should nonetheless press for a PSR where custody is borderline, where complex rehabilitative options exist, or where welfare and risk issues cannot be fully illuminated without probation input.
Message‑led evidence and role assessment: The Court confirms that “significant role” can be made out from communications showing awareness of scale, expectation of profit, and involvement of others—even if profits were limited or later seizures are not tied to the defendant. Defence teams must be prepared to challenge the operational significance of messages with cogent, contextual evidence; otherwise, the messaging may be treated as operational reality, not mere puffery.
Newton hearings and plea credit: Where a Newton hearing partially vindicates the defence, courts may still allow high plea credit. This encourages proportionate contest of material issues without automatic forfeiture of credit, provided the dispute was reasonable and focused.
Timeliness of sentence appeals: The decision reiterates that absent arguable merit, substantial delays will not be excused. Applicants should seek advice early and move promptly; otherwise, even sympathetic personal circumstances are unlikely to overcome prolonged, unexplained delay.
“Concerned in supply” reach: The case highlights the breadth of this offence. Facilitation, coordination, and communication—particularly where others are mobilised—can ground significant culpability and category 2 harm assessments without large seizures or proven profits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Newton hearing: A short, judge‑run fact‑finding process used when a defendant pleads guilty but disputes material facts that would affect sentence. The judge hears evidence and decides the factual basis for sentencing. Appellate courts rarely overturn those findings absent clear error.
Being “concerned in the supply”: A Misuse of Drugs Act offence capturing those who arrange, facilitate, or participate in supplying controlled drugs, not just those who physically hand them over. Planning and coordination can suffice.
Role assessment (“significant role”): In drug supply guidelines, culpability depends on the offender’s role. “Significant role” typically involves some influence on others, operational awareness, and an expectation of financial gain, without necessarily being the organiser‑in‑chief.
Harm category (Class A, category 2): For Class A, category 2 often corresponds to kilo‑level supply or facilitation. It carries a high starting point, particularly when paired with a significant role.
Totality: A guideline principle ensuring that, when sentencing for multiple offences, the overall sentence is just and proportionate to the total offending rather than simply adding up each count mechanically.
Guilty plea credit: Sentence reductions for admitting guilt early. Where a Newton hearing is needed to resolve truly material disputes—especially where the defence position is partly accepted—credit may remain high.
Pre‑sentence report (PSR) and Liaison & Diversion (L&D): A PSR is a probation report assisting the court on background, risk, and rehabilitative options. L&D reports, prepared by healthcare professionals, focus on vulnerabilities and can cover similar ground. If the information before the court is adequate and custody is inevitable, a PSR can be dispensed with.
Extension of time for appeal: Appeals must be brought within strict time limits. Extensions require good reason and, importantly, an arguable ground. Without merit, delay will not be excused.
Manifestly excessive: An appellate standard asking whether the sentence falls outside the proper range informed by guidelines and the facts; not merely whether a different sentence could reasonably have been passed.

Conclusion

R v Sohna reaffirms several practical sentencing and appellate principles in drug supply cases. First, sentencing judges may, in appropriate cases, proceed without a PSR where a Liaison and Diversion report supplies adequate information and immediate custody is inevitable. Second, the Court of Appeal will defer to careful Newton findings, especially where the judge has heard substantial live evidence and has balanced competing bases. Third, message‑based evidence evidencing facilitation, involvement of others, awareness of scale, and the pursuit of significant profit can support a “significant role” assessment and category 2 harm for Class A supply, notwithstanding limited realised profits or the absence of later linked seizures. Fourth, properly handled Newton disputes do not necessarily erode guilty plea credit. Finally, without arguable merit, significant delay in lodging sentence appeals will not be overcome by an extension of time.

The decision’s significance lies in its clear, pragmatic guidance to trial judges and practitioners: ensure that the factual foundation is established robustly at Newton hearings; apply the drug guidelines by reference to operational reality revealed by communications and conduct; and recognise that where the inevitability of immediate custody is clear and the court has adequate personal information, the absence of a formal PSR does not vitiate the sentencing exercise. As a result, Sohna will likely be cited for its PSR/L&D clarification, its endorsement of message‑led role assessments, and its restatement of appellate restraint in Newton challenges.