Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal against concurrent sentences of 3 years 2 months' imprisonment imposed on the Appellant by Judge Lamb in the Crown Court at The City for two counts of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs (heroin and cocaine) between 25 January and 22 February 2021. The Appellant pleaded guilty at a pre-trial review on a written basis accepted by the prosecution. The Recorder gave 20% credit for plea, yielding a notional sentence after trial of 4 years.
Eight co-defendants were sentenced on the same occasion. At the original sentencing hearing one count was omitted from pronouncement; at a slip rule hearing the omission was rectified by imposing a concurrent sentence on the second count. The Recorder explained concurrent sentences on the basis that the counts were part of the same conspiracy.
Substantive facts: the offence was a County lines operation (the "Scouse AJ line") operated from The Region supplying heroin and cocaine in The City using bulk/flare texts from "graft" phones. Telephone, cell site and ANPR evidence identified two principal controllers based in The Region. Several co-defendants performed roles including transport and street dealing. The Appellant and two co-defendants were street dealers; in the week before arrest the Appellant also organised taxis for the group.
On 3 February 2021 police observed the Appellant supplying drugs in The City park and later at the Appellant's address ([Number] Main Street). Seizures from the Appellant and from the address included wraps of heroin and crack cocaine, cash, scales and a mobile phone. The group continued some activity after these arrests and other co-defendants were arrested later.
In interview the Appellant initially denied dealing and knowledge of drugs at his address, maintaining those denials until he pleaded guilty after an amendment to the indictment. The signed basis of plea admitted street dealing on the day of arrest and limited supportive tasks (e.g. booking taxis) in the preceding week.
The Recorder had before him a prosecution sentencing note attributing a significant role to the Appellant, a defence "heads of mitigation" asserting a lesser role, a pre-sentence report describing heavy drug use and being an "easy target," and a psychiatric report diagnosing severe, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, alcohol dependence and opioid dependence. The psychiatrist recorded psychotic symptoms during 2020–21 and considered the Appellant vulnerable in prison.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the notional sentence after trial of 4 years was manifestly excessive because the Recorder failed to take adequate account of mitigation arising from the Appellant's serious mental health conditions.
- Whether the Appellant's role within the conspiracy was properly categorised (significant role with a modest downward adjustment versus a lesser role/category 3), and the effect of that categorisation on the appropriate starting point and range under the Definitive Sentencing Guidelines.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (presented by Attorney Lees)
- The total sentence before credit (4 years notional) was manifestly excessive because the Recorder failed to give adequate weight to mitigation from the Appellant's severe mental health conditions.
- The Recorder did not follow the structured approach required by the guidelines for offenders with mental disorders (assess culpability, then consider reduction if a sufficient connection exists between disorder and offending) and did not explain any departure from expert opinion.
- The Appellant should have been placed in a lesser role (category 3) with a starting point of 3 years' custody and a range of 2 to 4 years 6 months; alternatively, the combination of mitigating features (including mental health) should have led to a reduced starting point before plea credit.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the sentencing material and the Recorder's remarks. It observed that the Recorder correctly identified harm level 3 for street dealing and applied the Definitive Sentencing Guidelines, treating the Appellant as having an organisational and operational role of limited duration and making a modest downward adjustment for indicators of a lesser role.
The court held that the Recorder should have followed a structured approach when considering the psychiatric evidence under the guidelines on mental disorders: (1) assess culpability under offence-specific guidelines; (2) consider whether culpability is reduced by reason of the disorder; and (3) if the sentencer departs from expert opinion, give reasons. The Recorder did not expressly address the psychiatrist's report or explain whether the Appellant's culpability was reduced by his mental disorder.
Despite that omission, the court concluded an inference could be drawn that the Recorder did not consider the Appellant's culpability to be significantly reduced (if reduced at all) by mental health difficulties. The psychiatric report did not specifically link the Appellant's illness to responsibility for the offending; it described general cognitive and decision-making deficits associated with schizophrenia but did not state that the Appellant lacked awareness of his actions or was directed by voices. The pre-sentence report indicated the Appellant had chosen to become involved and had been targeted by others, undermining a finding of substantially reduced culpability.
The court also analysed role: the Appellant performed some operational tasks beyond mere street dealing (including organising taxis and other administrative tasks) and thus could properly be ascribed a significant role with a downward adjustment for lesser-role features, short duration, vulnerability and being taken advantage of. Finally, even if the notional sentence should have been modestly lower, multiple counts involving different Class A drugs justified an upward adjustment overall so that a 4-year notional sentence fell within an available and not manifestly excessive range.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED
Consequences: The concurrent sentences of 3 years 2 months' imprisonment stand. The court concluded the Recorder was entitled to treat the Appellant as playing a significant role with a modest downward adjustment and to infer that mental health did not materially reduce culpability on the available evidence. The decision resolves the appeal between the parties and does not establish any new binding precedent beyond applying the existing sentencing framework and guidance on mental disorders.