Moore, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to being concerned in supplying cocaine, being involved in supplying diamorphine, and possessing criminal property. A further count was ordered to lie on the file. [1]

The Applicant was subsequently sentenced by the sentencing judge to three years’ imprisonment, with concurrent sentences on the other counts. Two co-defendants received sentences of six years and three months, while another received 30 months. [2][3]

The case concerned a county-lines operation supplying heroin and cocaine in the City. The Applicant acted as a street-level dealer, taking instructions, delivering drugs, collecting payment, and returning money to those higher in the operation. The prosecution could evidence his involvement over three days. [4][5][6][7]

The Applicant had numerous previous convictions, including convictions for possessing controlled drugs. A pre-sentence report identified longstanding substance misuse, limited insight, and a medium risk of serious harm to the public. [8][9]

The Registrar referred the Applicant’s application for permission to appeal against sentence to the Court of Appeal. [10]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge wrongly assessed the Applicant as having a significant role rather than a lesser role in the drug-supply operation. [11][12]
2. Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient account was taken of the Applicant’s previous convictions or the possibility of suspending the sentence. [13][14]

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant’s Arguments

• The Applicant’s role was limited to three days within an operation lasting at least four months. [11]
• He acted only under the instructions of others and was merely a runner, delivering drugs and collecting payment in the City. [11][13]
• The sentencing judge gave excessive weight to his previous convictions. [13]
• The judge failed adequately to consider whether the sentence should be suspended. [13]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that the Applicant’s evidenced involvement lasted only three days, but focused on the nature of his activities within the operation. He received detailed instructions, supplied drugs, collected money, returned proceeds, and maintained contact with the drug lines. [15][16]

The court rejected the characterization of the Applicant as merely a runner. It held that the sentencing judge was entitled to regard him as a trusted person operating on the ground and to place him in a significant role, albeit at the lower end of that category. [12]

The applicable guideline starting point for a significant role was four and a half years’ custody, with a range of three and a half to seven years. Even on the lesser-role basis advanced by the Applicant, the court considered that an uplift would have been required to reflect the scale of the offending, the multiple offences, and his previous convictions. [12]

The court considered that the sentencing judge had taken the Applicant’s mitigation into account. A sentence of three years and four months before credit, reduced to three years for the guilty plea, was not arguably manifestly excessive. [12][17]

Although the sentencing judge had not expressly referred to the Imposition Guideline or addressed suspension in detail, the issue had been raised during sentencing. The judge’s conclusion that the least sentence available was three years’ imprisonment showed that he considered immediate custody necessary because of the seriousness of the offending. [14]

Given the seriousness of the county-lines drug offending, the Applicant’s role, and his antecedent history, the court held that immediate custody was within the proper sentencing range and was appropriate. [18]

Holding and Implications

Permission to appeal against sentence was dismissed. [19]

The Applicant’s three-year custodial sentence therefore remained in force. The decision determined the Applicant’s sentence and did not establish a new precedent.