R v Christopher Broomes

A non-commercial social supply of drugs acquired through pooled resources is not, without more, selling directly to users for the purposes of the drug-offences sentencing guideline. In a lesser-role case, it falls within Category 4 rather than Category 3.

The sentencing court must then assess aggravating and mitigating features within the Category 4 range and give appropriate credit for a guilty plea. Delay will not necessarily mitigate sentence where it has no practical effect on the offender’s custody.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Croydon Crown Court to possession of cocaine, a class A drug, with intent to supply. He said that he had bought 13 wraps using money pooled with friends for their shared social use, without commercial profit.

The Recorder treated the offence as a lesser-role Category 3 case and imposed 25 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the conduct was a social supply falling within Category 4 and that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation.

The central issue was whether pooled-resources social supply amounted to selling directly to users under the applicable sentencing guideline.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of 25 months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with 14 months’ imprisonment.

2. The appellant plainly had a lesser role. The decisive issue was whether the social supply placed the case in Category 3, for selling directly to users, or Category 4. The court followed R v Ghalghal [2016] EWCA Crim 140. That authority established a wider principle than the possible absence of any supply where users jointly acquire drugs, as discussed in R v McKenzie and others [2012] EWCA Crim 155.

3. Where resources are pooled and the resulting supplies are loose, informal and non-commercial, the conduct is a bare social supply. It is not selling by the defendant to friends. Category 4 was therefore the correct category, with a starting point of 18 months.

4. The delay between plea and sentence did not add materially to the appellant’s personal mitigation. By virtue of section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the sentence for the drug offence began when passed. The appellant remained in custody on recall for an earlier firearms offence, so the practical effect of delay was uncertain.

5. The appellant’s personal mitigation was counterbalanced by his previous convictions, particularly the firearms offence. Applying the 18-month starting point and approximately 20 per cent credit for a guilty plea entered after the plea and trial preparation hearing produced a sentence of 14 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the 25-month sentence and substituted 14 months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Croydon: On 18 August 2023, following a guilty plea, imposed 25 months’ imprisonment for possession of a class A drug with intent to supply.