Subeir, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion, delivered by Judge Nicklin, concerns an appeal by the Appellant against sentence imposed following guilty pleas in the Crown Court at The City. At a plea and trial preparation hearing on 23 October 2023 the Appellant pleaded guilty to two offences of being concerned in the supply of a Class A controlled drug (counts 1 and 2) and one offence of possessing criminal property (count 7). On 12 November 2024 the Appellant was sentenced to 31 months' imprisonment for each drugs offence and three months' imprisonment for the possession of criminal property, all to be served concurrently.

A Co-defendant pleaded guilty to related offences and received a sentence of three years and eight months' imprisonment. With leave of a single judge, the Appellant appealed against the overall sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The factual background as set out in the opinion describes a street supply operation (referred to in the source as a named drugs line) discovered by police in December 2022 in The City. The operation used two telephone numbers over different periods in 2022–2023. Phone analysis, cell-site evidence and CCTV were used to link the Appellant, the Co-defendant and others to the operation. The Appellant was found to have been involved on specific dates in September 2023, was arrested following police attendance and a subsequent vehicle pursuit on 21 September 2023, and was in possession of £2,000 when stopped. The Appellant provided a prepared statement denying involvement and then declined to comment further.

By the sentencing hearing the Appellant had been remanded in custody since 21 September 2023 and had a criminal record including previous drug offences and a significant prior sentence for manslaughter imposed in 2014; following the present offences the Appellant was subject to recall in respect of that earlier sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed by the Crown Court was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in selecting an unduly high starting point under the relevant sentencing guideline — specifically whether the Appellant should have been categorised as playing a "significant" role rather than a "lesser" role (or vice versa) and how that categorisation should affect the starting point.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant, through Attorney Kimsey, argued that the sentencing judge adopted too high a starting point under the sentencing guidelines.
• It was submitted that the Appellant's role was borderline between "significant" and "lesser" and that the judge failed adequately to reflect that borderline position when fixing the starting point.
• The Appellant had provided a basis of plea describing restricted involvement: initial involvement only from 5 September 2023, co-location on specific dates (5–13 September 2023), acting primarily to hold the drugs line phone and give pick-up directions for payment (about £100 per day), not responsible for sending bulk text messages, not active on certain later dates in September, and asserting a "lesser role" under direction with limited awareness of the scale of the operation.
• Personal mitigation included mental health issues (symptoms of trauma, depression, anxiety and ADHD), demonstrated engagement with treatment, remorse in a personal letter, and the fact that the Appellant had been in custody on remand since 21 September 2023.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution did not accept the Appellant's basis of plea but accepted the period of involvement was limited. They maintained the Appellant played a "significant role".
• The prosecution relied on a number of factual points to support significant involvement:
  • Mobile phone analysis indicating bulk text messages were sent from the drugs line around 8:40 on 8 September 2023; cell-site analysis placing the phone near a residential block (referred to in the source) and CCTV showing the Appellant leaving that location shortly afterwards; and tracking of the drugs line towards The City on a journey during which the Appellant was present.
  • The Appellant's presence among associates at that residential location, from which multiple drugs lines were run.
  • The Appellant taking the line on the trip to The City, another location where the group offered drugs for sale.
  • The Appellant's possession of £2,000 when the vehicle was stopped.
  • Extensive contacts between the Appellant and the Co-defendant (246 contacts or attempted contacts over a specified period) demonstrating association.
• On sentencing categorisation, the prosecution submitted that the offending fell into category 3 (street supply) and that, whether viewed as a significant role for a short period or a high-level lesser role, the appropriate starting point range was a starting point of four and a half years with a range of three and a half to seven years.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court reviewed the sentencing judge's approach to categorisation and reduction. The sentencing judge had treated the Appellant as playing a "significant role", producing a guideline starting point of four and a half years' imprisonment. The judge identified two mitigating features: (1) the Appellant's control of the drugs line was for a short period, and (2) the Appellant's recall to serve a prior sentence meant time on remand would not count towards that prior sentence's balance. The judge reduced the starting point by 12 months to reflect mitigation before applying reduced credit for the guilty plea (25% credit at the plea and trial preparation hearing), resulting in the 31-month sentence imposed.

On appeal, Judge Nicklin observed that the sentencing remarks were concise and did not fully explain the arithmetic by which the judge reached the final term prior to the plea discount. The Court noted that the judge could have explained the calculation more fully, but emphasised that lack of detailed explanation did not equate to error in principle or manifest excess.

The Court clarified an important point of sentencing law relied on in its analysis: the categorisation of a defendant's role under the sentencing guidelines (e.g., "significant" versus "lesser") is distinct from the duration for which the defendant played that role. The duration is a relevant mitigating factor but does not alter the categorisation itself.

Applying the facts to these principles, the Court accepted the prosecution's contention that the Appellant did not occupy a "lesser" role. The Court relied on the investigative evidence summarised by the prosecution — close connection with the operation on 8 September 2023, involvement in the journey to The City where the line offered sales, possession of a substantial sum of cash, and extensive contact with the Co-defendant — which collectively indicated awareness of the operation's scale and activity beyond merely answering the phone to give pick-up directions.

The Court concluded that the sentencing judge's 12-month reduction from the starting point adequately reflected the mitigation, including the limited period of involvement and the personal mitigation that had been presented, even though the judge did not make express reference to every particular mitigate factor in oral remarks.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Holding: The appellate court held that the sentence imposed by the Crown Court was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle and therefore dismissed the Appellant's appeal.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the sentence imposed at first instance stands — specifically, concurrent terms producing an overall sentence of 31 months' imprisonment for the offences as described in the opinion. The Court emphasised that the manner of expressing the reductions could have differed, but there was no error requiring intervention. The opinion does not set or alter legal precedent; it applies established sentencing principles concerning role categorisation versus duration of involvement and affirms that a concise sentencing explanation, while not ideal, will not in itself amount to reversible error where the conclusion is supportable on the evidence.