R v Subeir [2025] EWCA Crim 1366: Duration of Involvement Does Not Determine “Role” Category in Class A Supply Sentencing

Introduction

This appeal from the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) concerned sentencing for Class A drug supply offences arising from the operation of the “Sonic” street supply line in West London. The appellant, Subeir, pleaded guilty to two counts of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs and one count of possessing criminal property. He was sentenced to 31 months’ imprisonment on each drugs count (concurrent) and three months for the criminal property (concurrent).

At issue on appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred by treating the appellant as having a “significant role” under the Sentencing Council’s drug offences guideline (category 3: street supply), or whether, in light of the short duration of his involvement and his asserted limited function, the correct categorisation was “lesser role.” The appellant argued the sentence was manifestly excessive because the judge took too high a starting point, despite the parties’ acceptance that he was on the border between “significant” and a high-end “lesser” role.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judgment clarifies and emphasises an important point of sentencing principle in drug supply cases: the assessment of a defendant’s “role” is distinct from, and not determined by, the length of time for which the role was performed. Short involvement may mitigate sentence, but it does not convert a significant role into a lesser one.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) and received 25% credit. The judge treated him as a “significant role” offender within category 3 (street supply) and applied a starting point of 4.5 years.
Two mitigating features were expressly identified: (i) the short period during which the appellant controlled the line, and (ii) the effect of recall to an extended sentence for manslaughter, meaning his time on remand would not count towards the new sentence.
Balancing these with the aggravating factor that the offences were committed on licence, the judge reduced the pre-plea sentence by 12 months and then applied 25% credit, producing 31 months.
On appeal, the Court held the sentence was not manifestly excessive and not wrong in principle. The court endorsed the judge’s categorisation of “significant role” and the approach of treating short duration as mitigation rather than as determinative of the role category.
The Court expressly stated that the assessment of role is separate from the duration of offending, and that whether the appellant sent bulk texts himself was not decisive: the wider evidence showed close involvement and awareness of the scale of the operation (including out-of-area supply and possession of significant cash).
Appeal dismissed.

Detailed Analysis

1) The Guideline Framework Applied

The case proceeded under the Sentencing Council’s drug offences guideline for supply of controlled drugs. The Crown and defence agreed the case fell within category 3 (street supply). The central debate was where the appellant sat on the guideline’s “role” spectrum (“lesser”, “significant”, or “leading”).

The prosecution’s position at sentence was that the appellant was either firmly in “significant role” or, at best for him, at the high end of “lesser role,” putting him in the vicinity of a 4.5-year starting point with a guideline range of 3.5 to 7 years. The judge adopted “significant role” with a 4.5-year starting point, then adjusted downward to reflect mitigation, and finally applied plea credit.

2) Precedents and Authorities Cited

No specific earlier authorities were cited in the judgment. The Court grounded its reasoning in:

The Sentencing Council guideline structure (category and role assessment, then adjustment for aggravation/mitigation and plea credit).
Well-established appellate principles that an appeal will only succeed if the sentence is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, and that appellate intervention is not warranted merely because the sentence could have been structured or expressed differently.

The absence of case citation underscores that this decision functions primarily as a guideline-based clarification. It provides practical, authoritative guidance on the correct application of the role assessment in drug supply sentencing.

3) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Role assessment is separate from duration of involvement

The pivotal holding appears at paragraph 19:

“[T]he judge is required to assess the role played by the defendant. That is separate from the period for which the defendant played that role. Whilst that is a relevant factor for sentencing, it is not relevant to the categorisation of the role.”

This is the key clarification. In practice, defendants often argue that a short stint in “holding the line” or occasional handling of the drugs phone places them in “lesser role.” The Court rejects that conflation. What counts for role is the nature and responsibility of the function in the supply chain, not how long it lasted. The limited duration may justify a downward adjustment from the starting point, but it does not reclassify the role itself.

b) Evidence supporting a “significant role”

The Court upheld the judge’s finding of “significant role,” emphasising:

Telephony and cell-site analysis showed the appellant at times in control of the line (5–13 September 2023), with bulk messaging activity proximate to his home and co-location between his personal handset and the line (including a notable trip to Bournemouth on 8 September 2023).
Call pattern evidence: if buyers could not reach the Sonic line, they called the appellant (and vice versa), showing functional interchangeability and responsibility for continuity of supply.
Association with the group operating from Rosina Court (from which multiple lines were run), reflecting involvement in the organised supply infrastructure.
Possession of £2,000 cash on arrest, undermining the assertion that he was merely paid around £100/day for a limited, directed task and supporting a conclusion of greater involvement and personal gain.

The Court observed that even if the appellant did not personally send the bulk texts on 8 September, his actions that day and overall proximity to the operation demonstrated awareness of scale and engagement beyond simply relaying pickup locations. The out-of-area trip to Bournemouth was a particularly telling indicator of the operation’s scope and the appellant’s role within it.

c) Duration is properly treated as mitigation, not re-categorisation

The judge recognised the appellant’s short period of control and the separate and significant effect of recall to an extended sentence for an earlier manslaughter conviction (which meant time on remand would not count towards the new term). These factors justified an overall reduction of 12 months from the 4.5-year starting point before applying plea credit. The Court regarded that reduction as appropriate and sufficient to capture the available mitigation, including mental health issues and expressed remorse.

d) Adequacy of sentencing remarks and appellate restraint

The Court noted the sentencing remarks were brief and could have explained more fully how the sentence was calculated. However, it emphasised that the determinative question is whether the final sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle—not whether the judge provided an ideal level of detail. Here, although the sentence might have been “expressed in different ways,” it fell within the proper bracket and reflected the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

4) Impact and Practical Implications

a) Role categorisation in drug line cases

This decision will be frequently cited in “street line” and “drug line” prosecutions. It addresses a recurrent argument that a defendant’s brief tenure holding or carrying the line phone compels “lesser role.” The Court’s clarification is categorical: role classification depends on the nature and responsibility of the function within the supply operation, not the chronological length of involvement.

Implications:

Prosecution: Where evidence shows the defendant acted as a functional controller or was integral to continuity of supply (e.g., bulk messaging, directing buyers, handling the line during out-of-area supply, holding significant cash), “significant role” can be maintained even for short periods.
Defence: Arguments should focus on mitigation from brevity, personal circumstances (e.g., mental health), and the effect of recall, rather than on reclassifying the role solely by duration.

b) Reliance on telecoms and circumstantial evidence

The Court validated the use of cell-site, co-location, call pattern analysis, and contextual indicators (e.g., travel to other cities; association with known hubs like Rosina Court) to attribute control of a line and infer knowledge of scale. This affirms the evidential toolkit frequently used in modern drug line prosecutions.

c) Treatment of recall to licence in sentencing

The sentencing judge expressly took account of the appellant’s recall to serve the balance of an extended sentence for manslaughter, recognising that time spent remanded for the new offences would not count towards the fresh sentence. The Court approved that approach, signalling:

It is proper to consider the practical impact of recall when assessing totality and mitigation.
Reductions to reflect recall are permissible to arrive at a proportionate overall outcome.

d) Appellate approach to brevity in sentencing remarks

The Court reiterated that while fuller explanations are desirable, a sentence will not be quashed merely because the judge’s reasoning is concise, provided the end result is within the guideline structure, reflects relevant factors, and is not manifestly excessive.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug”: A person commits this offence if they participate in, arrange, or facilitate the process by which drugs are supplied to others, even if they do not personally hand over drugs. Running or holding a supply phone line, directing customers to pickup points, or coordinating deals can suffice.
Drug sentencing guideline: category and role:
- Category relates to the scale and context of the supply (e.g., category 3 is typically street supply).
- Role captures the defendant’s responsibility and function:
  - Lesser role: limited function under direction; little or no influence; often minimal awareness of the operation’s scale; generally minor financial gain.
  - Significant role: operational or management function; trusted involvement; some influence on others or on supply continuity; notable personal gain.
  - Leading role: directing or organising overall operation, substantial control and profit.
- Key clarification in Subeir: How long the defendant did the role does not determine the role category. Duration mitigates sentence length but does not downgrade “significant” to “lesser.”
Starting point and range: The guideline provides a “starting point” for sentence based on category and role, and a permissible “range.” The court adjusts from the starting point for aggravating and mitigating factors before applying any plea discount.
Credit for a guilty plea: A reduction in sentence to reflect an early guilty plea. At a PTPH, credit is commonly up to 25% (less than the one-third available for pleas at the first reasonable opportunity).
Concurrent sentences: Multiple sentences served at the same time. Here, the drugs sentences and the criminal property sentence ran concurrently.
Recall to licence: If a new offence is committed during the licence period of an earlier extended or determinate sentence, the offender can be recalled to prison to serve outstanding time. Time on remand for the new offence may not automatically count towards the fresh sentence; courts can consider this practical effect when calibrating the new sentence.
Basis of plea: A defendant’s written account of the facts underlying their guilty plea. If the prosecution disputes the basis, the court either resolves it or sentences on the prosecution case where appropriate. Disputed assertions that affect guideline categorisation (e.g., role) must be supported by evidence.
Telephony and cell-site evidence: Analysis of call data, handset co-location, and cell-site areas to infer control of a drugs line, movements consistent with supply, and links among associates. Bulk-text messaging is a common feature of street supply, advertising availability to customers.
Manifestly excessive: The appellate standard for interfering with sentence. The Court will not substitute its own view merely because it might have arrived at a different figure; it intervenes only if the sentence is outside the proper range or wrong in principle.

Key Takeaways and Conclusion

New clarificatory principle: Role categorisation in drug supply sentencing is about the nature and responsibility of the function performed, not the duration for which it was performed. Short duration mitigates quantum but does not dictate “lesser role.”
Evidence of functional control, customer direction, co-location with the line, out-of-area activity, and possession of significant cash can support a “significant role,” even if the defendant claims they merely “held the phone.”
Judges can and should reflect the practical impact of recall to licence on remand time as part of the mitigation/totality analysis.
Brief sentencing remarks are not, without more, a basis for appellate intervention if the sentence is otherwise justifiable within guideline parameters.
The Court’s “stepping back” approach confirms that the ultimate question is proportionality and principle, not the precise path the judge took to arrive there.

In R v Subeir, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed adherence to the sentencing guideline structure and supplied useful, practice-focused guidance for a common, contested issue: where a defendant fits on the “role” spectrum in short-lived involvement with a busy street supply line. The decision will assist trial courts, prosecutors, and defence practitioners alike by drawing a clear line between the categorisation of role and the mitigation that arises from brevity, ensuring consistent, principled sentencing in drug line cases.