R v Mason Rodgers

For drug-supply sentencing, an offender should be assessed as having a limited role where the evidence does not clearly establish the awareness, involvement or anticipated advantage required for a significant role.

On a sentence appeal, however, the decisive question is whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. A wrong categorisation or starting point will not require interference where the overall offending justifies an upward adjustment and the resulting sentence remains within the applicable category range. Multiple offences, supplies of different drugs, offending on separate days, and supply at a festival may justify such an adjustment.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Warrington Magistrates’ Court to five controlled-drug supply offences. He was committed for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

At Chester Crown Court, HHJ Berkson imposed concurrent sentences totalling three years’ detention in a young offender institution. The appellant was 21 when convicted, so that description was a slip: the sentence should have been expressed as imprisonment.

He appealed against sentence. The principal issue was whether the judge had wrongly assessed him as having a significant role under the relevant sentencing guideline and, if so, whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Crown Court record was to be corrected to record a term of imprisonment rather than detention in a young offender institution, since the appellant was 21 at conviction.

2. The sentencing judge had erred in finding a significant role. Although telephone messages showed some advance planning, there was no clear evidence of the awareness of, or role in, wider drug supply required by the significant-role criteria. Nor was there evidence that the appellant expected more than a limited financial or other advantage. His offending was consistent with a limited role, for which the starting point for the Class A offences was three years’ custody.

3. That error did not make the total sentence manifestly excessive. The three-year starting point was for a single offence. The court had to sentence three Class A offences as well as two Class B offences, requiring an upward adjustment to reflect the overall criminality.

4. The appellant supplied or intended to supply two different Class A drugs, sought to supply about 30 people, and offended on two different days after attempting to evade festival security. Supply at a music festival was a serious aggravating feature. The festival presented a closed and susceptible market, with heightened risks from drug consumption, and deterrence was required.

5. The court accepted that the appellant had substantial personal mitigation, including good character, remorse and constructive progress before custody. The sentencing judge had already taken those matters into account. An overall sentence of four and a half years before credit for guilty pleas, reduced to three years after full credit, was at the top of the category range but was not manifestly excessive. A suspended sentence therefore did not arise.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—dismissed the appeal against sentence and directed correction of the sentencing record.
• Crown Court at Chester—on 12 September 2023, HHJ Berkson imposed concurrent sentences totalling three years after guilty pleas.
• Warrington Magistrates’ Court—on 25 July 2023, committed the appellant for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.