R v Mohammed Derie

In sentencing for Class A drug supply, culpability may fall between lesser and significant roles where an offender performs an operational function but acts under direction. A court may instead start from the lesser-role category and adjust upwards to reflect that function. Youth, vulnerability, exploitation and rehabilitation must be considered, but do not necessarily require a greater reduction where the sentence remains proportionate. Where a guilty plea is entered on the day of trial, a 10% reduction may be appropriate if the defendant has not shown that particular circumstances made an earlier plea unreasonable.

The appellant, aged 17 for part of the offending and 18 at sentence, pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to two Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 offences involving the supply of Class A drugs through two drug lines. The Crown Court at Isleworth imposed concurrent sentences of 27 months’ detention in a Young Offender Institution.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the starting point was excessive, that insufficient weight had been given to his age, vulnerability, exploitation and the Children Guideline, and that he should receive greater credit for his guilty pleas. The central issues were the assessment of his role, the reductions for youth and vulnerability, and the discount for the delayed pleas.

Appeal dismissed. The sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

1. The Recorder was entitled to assess culpability between a lesser and significant role. Sending bulk messages advertising crack cocaine and heroin constituted an operational function within the supply chain, even though the appellant acted under direction. A notional sentence of three years and nine months was proportionate. Even if the lesser-role starting point had been used, an upward adjustment would have been permissible to reflect the operational function and the overall seriousness of the offending (paras [9]–[10]).
2. The Recorder properly considered the appellant’s age, vulnerability, difficult childhood, pressure and coercion, the Children Guideline and the rehabilitative aims of youth justice. A reduction of one-third, resulting in a sentence of 30 months before plea credit, was significant. The circumstances did not require a greater reduction (para [11]).
3. The appellant’s reliance on a possible defence under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 did not establish that the delayed pleas resulted from a need for further legal advice. The Recorder was entitled to conclude that the pleas were entered when the strength of the evidence became clear and to limit credit to 10 per cent because they were entered on the day of trial. The criteria in section F1 of the guilty plea guideline were not satisfied (paras [12]–[14]).
4. Given the length of the sentence, a suspended sentence order was unavailable. A fresh prison report indicating suitability for unpaid work and other community requirements could not advance the appeal (para [15]).

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against sentence was dismissed. [2024] EWCA Crim 1337.
2. Crown Court at Isleworth — Following guilty pleas on re-arraignment, Ms Recorder Beaumont imposed concurrent sentences of 27 months’ detention in a Young Offender Institution.