Rodgers, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant pleaded guilty on 25 July 2023 before Warrington Magistrates' Court to five offences relating to the supply of controlled drugs and was committed for sentence pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020. On 12 September 2023, at the Crown Court at Chester before Judge Berkson, the appellant was sentenced to concurrent detention terms totaling three years. The appellant, aged 20 at the time of offending and 21 at sentencing, was mistakenly sentenced to detention in a Young Offender Institution rather than imprisonment, a slip the court noted should be corrected.

The offending arose from an incident on 27 August 2022 when the appellant was searched entering the Creamfields Music Festival in Cheshire. Police seized multiple controlled drugs including MDMA tablets, cocaine, and ketamine with an aggregate value of several hundred pounds. The appellant was arrested and denied supplying drugs, claiming personal use, but phone messages indicated intent to supply. The appellant had no previous convictions.

The prosecution case, accepted on a full-facts basis, distinguished two supply offences on 25 August and three possession with intent to supply offences on 27 August, reflecting multiple days of offending. The appellant was found to have supplied drugs to a group of approximately 30 friends attending the festival. The judge considered the festival context and the risk of drug-related harm, including a recent fatality linked to MDMA and cocaine at the event.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in categorising the appellant as having a significant role in the drug supply offences under the sentencing guideline.
2. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the appellant’s mitigation including age, lack of previous convictions, remorse, and delay in prosecution.
3. Whether the sentence should be reduced to a level that might allow suspension.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that the judge erred in categorising him as having a significant role, given the drugs were sold exclusively to friends, the quantities and values were relatively low, and no significant financial advantage was evident.
• The appellant argued that the sentencing starting point was therefore excessive and should have reflected a lesser role.
• He further submitted that the judge did not adequately reflect his significant mitigation, including youth, good character, remorse, and cessation of drug use following offending.
• The appellant also raised the issue of undue delay of approximately one year between offending and prosecution, which should mitigate sentence.
• Reference was made to the impact of a high prison population and restrictive Covid-19 prison conditions, emphasizing the harshness of custody under current circumstances.
• The appellant sought consideration for a reduced sentence potentially suspending custody.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that the judge erred in classifying the appellant as having a significant role under the sentencing guidelines. Although there was some evidence of advance planning, there was no clear indication that the appellant had the awareness or role consistent with a significant role categorisation. The appellant’s financial or other advantage was limited, and his offending was consistent with a limited role. Accordingly, the court held the correct starting point for the Class A offences was three years, not four and a half years.

The court acknowledged the appellant’s strong mitigation, including employment and education prior to custody, genuine remorse, and efforts to cease drug use. However, the sentencing judge had taken these factors into account. The court noted that the starting point applies to a single offence, but the appellant was sentenced for multiple Class A and Class B offences, justifying an upward adjustment for the number and seriousness of offences.

The court emphasized aggravating factors such as supplying or intending to supply two different Class A drugs, selling to a large group, and committing offences on two separate days while evading stringent festival security. The community impact statement underscored the need for deterrence in the festival context, a serious aggravating factor.

Ultimately, the court concluded that despite mitigation, the seriousness of the offending justified an overall sentence at the top of the sentencing category range before credit for guilty pleas. The judge’s original conclusion of a 4½ year sentence, reduced to 3 years for plea credit, was not manifestly excessive. Therefore, no suspended sentence was appropriate.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL on the renewed grounds and DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect is that the appellant’s sentence of three years' detention remains upheld, reflecting the seriousness of multiple drug supply offences at a high-risk festival environment despite mitigation. No new precedent was set by this decision.