Summary of Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant appealed with leave against a custodial term of four years imposed for two counts of being concerned in the supply of a Class A controlled drug (cocaine) under section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Count 1 concerned the operation of a county drugs line called the "Diego" line selling cocaine into The City between 9 January and 4 April 2024. The Appellant was charged with several co-defendants who collectively communicated and arranged deals via analysis of mobile phones; bulk messages were sent from the Diego line advertising cocaine sales. The Appellant was identified by the police as a controller of the Diego line; phone analysis showed travel with the line to other towns.

Count 2 concerned the Appellant alone and involved a separate county drugs line named the "Troy" line, operating into the Avon and Somerset area between 4 and 10 April 2024. The Appellant was arrested in relation to the Troy line after being observed moving between two addresses in the same street. On arrest, 17 bags of cocaine were found in his possession; at his property officers seized drug paraphernalia including snap-seal bags, digital scales and a small bag of herbal cannabis. The street value of the drugs found was recorded as £12,000. Subsequent phone analysis linked the Appellant to the Diego line (count 1).

Procedurally, the Appellant pleaded guilty to Count 2 (the Troy line) at a plea and trial preparation hearing on 8 May 2024 on a basis explaining prior involvement in the line, a prior conviction in 2021 leading to a debt to those above him, threats made while in custody, and pressure on release that caused him to sell drugs to repay that debt. The Appellant did not plead guilty to Count 1 at that hearing due to an apparent misunderstanding about potential discontinuance; he later pleaded guilty to Count 1 on 20 September 2024 on a limited basis (involvement from 4 to 8 March 2024), which prosecution did not dispute.

At sentence the judge described the Diego operation as a mid-range county line and treated the Appellant as having been involved in two separate operations because two phones were involved. The judge awarded 20% credit for plea, treated the Appellant as controller of the Diego line, and recorded possession of the 17 bags of cocaine and paraphernalia. The sentencing process produced some confusion as to how the concurrent/consecutive and reductions were recorded, with the ultimately recorded outcome being three years on count 1 and one year consecutive on count 2, resulting in an overall custodial term of four years.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the four-year custodial sentence (after plea discounts) imposed for the two counts was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the judge took too high a starting point for Count 1 (Diego line) and mis-assessed the Appellant's role (significant role versus lesser role).
3. Whether the sentencing court should have treated Count 2 (Troy line) as the lead offence for the purpose of awarding plea credit (including entitlement to 33% credit) and whether appropriate credit was given for the Appellant's guilty pleas.
4. Whether insufficient regard was paid to the Appellant's undisputed basis of plea (particularly in relation to pressure and threats concerning the Troy line) and to the overall totality of sentence.
5. Whether a victim surcharge recorded on the record sheet had been lawfully imposed when the transcript suggested the judge had not imposed it, and the appropriate correction to the record if it was added administratively.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as presented by Attorney Lee)

• The starting point for Count 1 (Diego line) was too high because the Appellant's culpability was lower than found by the judge.
• Count 2 (Troy line) should have been treated as the lead offence, attracting a greater plea credit (33%), and the judge should have awarded credit for the early plea to Count 2.
• No credit was given for an early guilty plea in respect of Count 2 at sentence.
• Insufficient regard was paid to the Appellant's undisputed basis of plea, including evidence that he was pressured and threatened into resuming activity on the Troy line to repay a debt, which should have reduced his assessed role.
• Insufficient regard was paid to totality, rendering the sentence manifestly excessive.
• Reference was also made to a claimed delay in the sentencing hearing.

Prosecution's Position

• The prosecution did not dispute the bases of plea that were put forward for the defendants and accepted the role assessments adopted in sentencing.
• The prosecution's analysis, including police phone analysis and an officer's witness statement, supported the view that the Appellant had taken control of the Diego line for a period including travel with the line.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court framed the essential question as whether a four-year custodial sentence (after plea discounts) for operating two drugs lines was manifestly excessive. The court considered the two operations together given the relatively short time involved in both.

The court accepted there was some procedural confusion at the conclusion of sentencing as to how counts were recorded (concurrent/consecutive and reductions). The court acknowledged the sentencing judge did not expressly refer to the Appellant's basis of plea for either line but analysed whether that omission materially affected the outcome.

On the Troy line (Count 2), the court acknowledged the Appellant's basis of plea described pressure and threats connected to a prior debt and accepted that the Appellant pleaded guilty to Count 2 at the first Crown Court opportunity (the plea and trial preparation hearing). On the Diego line (Count 1), the court observed the basis of plea for Count 2 did not assert comparable pressure in relation to the Diego line; the prosecution evidence (phone analysis and a witness statement) indicated the Appellant had taken possession of and controlled the Diego line for a short period and had travelled with it, supporting a finding of a significant role for the Diego line despite its short duration.

The court rejected a submission in the written grounds that the offending should be placed in Harm Category 4; because the drugs were sold directly to users (even if the Appellant might not personally have sold to end users), the operation as a whole fell within Category 3 of the guideline.

Regarding plea credit, the court was prepared to increase the credit to 25% (from the 20% originally awarded), accepting that the Appellant pleaded guilty to Count 2 at the first Crown Court opportunity and that Count 1 had not been pleaded earlier due to a misunderstanding about potential discontinuance. The court declined to award a full one-third credit (33%) because (a) counsel had not advanced that figure at sentence and had agreed to 25% in the transcript, and (b) there was no Better Case Management form in the Digital Case System to evidence an earlier indication at Magistrates' Court as required by Precedent A.

The court applied the Sentencing Council Guidelines for drug offences. For a Level 3 significant role the starting point is 4½ years (with a range up to 7 years). Aggravating factors included the Appellant's prior drug convictions and that he was on licence at the time of the current offending. Mitigation for the Diego line was described as negligible. Even applying a 25% plea reduction, the court calculated a sentence for operating the Diego line alone that fell within the guideline range (approximately five years and four months after trial reduction, per the court's arithmetic), and concluded that the combined sentence (four years after reductions) was not manifestly excessive—the total was only ten months higher than the starting point for a single offence.

Finally, the court addressed an administrative issue: a victim surcharge of £228 appeared on the record sheet and monetary order although the sentencing remarks suggested the judge had not imposed a surcharge. The court noted that where a surcharge is added administratively but was not imposed by the judge, the order is not lawfully imposed, and directed correction of the record in line with the approach in Precedent B.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court held that the appeal against the sentence was largely dismissed: the custodial sentence of four years (as recorded after plea discounts and consecutive allocation) was not manifestly excessive and was upheld. To a limited extent, however, the appeal succeeded in relation to the victim surcharge: the court directed that the record be corrected to reflect that no surcharge was imposed by the judge.

Implications:

• The Appellant's substantive custodial sentence of four years stands; the court found the judge was entitled to treat the Appellant's role as significant in relation to the Diego line and properly classified harm as Category 3.
• The Appellant's plea credit was increased to 25% (from the 20% initially recorded), but a full one-third reduction was not awarded because of the absence of documentary evidence of an earlier indication in the lower court and because counsel had not sought the one-third figure at sentence.
• The administrative victim surcharge recorded in the court paperwork was not lawfully imposed and the appellate court directed correction of the record to show that no surcharge was imposed. This is a limited procedural success for the Appellant and does not affect the substantive custody term.
• No new sentencing principle was established; the decision applies existing Sentencing Council Guidelines and precedent (as summarized) to the facts of the case and corrects an administrative recording error.

Notes on Anonymization and Sources

All personal names and identifiable locations contained in the original opinion have been replaced with generic placeholders (for example, "Appellant," "Co-defendants," "Attorney Lee," and "The City") to preserve anonymity in this summary. Precedent citations in the opinion have been anonymized as "Precedent A" and "Precedent B" with their reported neutral citations retained for reference.