R v Tommy Robinson

In sentencing for street dealing, mitigation must be assessed cumulatively. Genuine remorse, substantial steps towards overcoming drug addiction, a resolution to withdraw from drug dealing, and a neurodiversity condition may, taken together, require a downward adjustment from the applicable starting point. The sentence after trial should then be identified before applying the appropriate reduction for an early guilty plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of possessing crack cocaine and heroin with intent to supply. He was sentenced by Mr Recorder Beer KC in the Crown Court at Luton to two years’ imprisonment on each count. The sentence was based on a three-year starting point for lesser-role category 3 street dealing, followed by full credit for his guilty pleas.

He appealed with the leave of the single judge, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to reflect the available mitigation. The central issue was whether the combination of his personal circumstances and steps towards rehabilitation required a reduction from the starting point.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal considered that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient effect to the cumulative force of the mitigation.

1. The appellant’s role was properly treated as a lesser role in category 3 street dealing. The applicable starting point was three years, with a range of two to four and a half years. There were no aggravating features.
2. The mitigation had to be considered in combination. The appellant had shown genuine remorse, taken steps to address his drug addiction, resolved to distance himself from those involved in drug dealing, and made good progress towards getting clean while in custody. His neurodiversity condition, including schizoaffective disorder, was also relevant. Taken together, those matters required a downward adjustment from the three-year starting point.
3. The appropriate sentence after trial was 27 months’ imprisonment. Applying full credit for the early guilty pleas resulted in a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment on each count.

The sentences were accordingly reduced to 18 months’ imprisonment on each count.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 16 January 2024, the court allowed the appeal against sentence and reduced the sentences to 18 months’ imprisonment on each count: [2024] EWCA Crim 36.
2. Crown Court at Luton: On 18 August 2023, Mr Recorder Beer KC sentenced the appellant to two years’ imprisonment on each count after guilty pleas.