Goodman, R v

A sentencing court must distinguish an offender’s actual role and personal mitigation from those of co-defendants. A defendant who facilitates contact between purchasers and Class A drug dealers may properly fall within the significant role category, even without participating in the physical sale or delivery of drugs. However, the sentence within that category must reflect the limited nature of that role, the absence of financial gain where established, and relevant mitigation. The appropriate reduction for an early guilty plea is then applied to the properly assessed pre-plea sentence.

R v Goodman was an appeal against a sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment imposed in the Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne for being concerned in the supply of a Class A controlled drug, contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The appellant, a student and junior club promoter, gave undercover officers telephone numbers for cocaine suppliers. The suppliers subsequently sold and delivered cocaine to the officers. He pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

The sentencing judge treated him as having a significant role and imposed a pre-plea term equal to that imposed on the principal dealers. The issue was whether that sentence sufficiently reflected his more limited role and mitigation.

1. Appeal allowed. The court set aside the 32-month sentence and substituted a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment.

2. The sentencing judge had been entitled to place the appellant in the significant-role category under the applicable drug-offences guideline. He had played an operational part by providing dealers’ telephone numbers and facilitating contact with purchasers. The court did not accept that his conduct required placement in a lower role category.

3. However, the judge erred by adopting the same pre-plea sentence as for Sean and Paul Moulding. Insufficient weight had been given to the appellant’s actual role and to mitigation. Unlike the dealers, he took no part in the sale or delivery of the drugs and had not been shown to have made financial gain from the conduct. His youth, good character, remorse, admissions and co-operation also required proper allowance.

4. The proper pre-plea sentence was at the bottom of the significant-role category range: three years and six months’ imprisonment. Applying the one-third reduction for the guilty plea produced a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and substituted 28 months’ imprisonment: [2019] EWCA Crim 1575.
• Crown Court at Newcastle-upon-Tyne: On 15 March 2019, imposed 32 months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea.