R v Charlie Birtchnell

In County lines sentencing, a defendant who knowingly performs an operational function over a sustained period may properly be treated as having a significant role, or as being at the top of the lesser-role range. The use and exploitation of a child to deliver controlled drugs are serious aggravating features. Any overlap between statutory and guideline aggravation must be recognised, but a substantial upward adjustment may still be justified.

Delay since apprehension is not mitigation in itself. It justifies a reduction only where it is unreasonable, is not the offender’s fault, and has caused detrimental effects. Where those conditions and other personal mitigation are established, the sentencing court must make an adequate overall allowance. Merely referring to the matters without reflecting them in the sentence can render the sentence manifestly excessive.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Inner London of conspiring to supply cocaine and heroin. The conspiracies concerned County lines drug dealing. The prosecution case, accepted by the jury, was that he drove a 16-year-old boy from London to Chard knowing that the boy was to sell class A drugs.

The trial judge treated the appellant as having a lesser role in harm category 3 street dealing, but imposed concurrent sentences of five years’ imprisonment after an upward adjustment for the conspiracy and the involvement of a child.

On his appeal against sentence, the appellant challenged the extent of that uplift, the treatment of pre-proceedings delay, and the allowance for personal mitigation.

1. Appeal allowed. The concurrent five-year sentences were manifestly excessive. They were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of four years’ imprisonment.
2. The judge had not erred in selecting a pre-mitigation sentence of five years and six months. The appellant had knowingly helped an established County lines operation, acted as an operational link for its organiser, and had done so over months rather than in a spontaneous isolated act. He could properly be viewed as having a significant role or, alternatively, as falling at the top of the lesser-role range.
3. The use of the 16-year-old engaged both the statutory aggravating factor concerning use of a person under 18 to deliver controlled drugs and the guideline factor of exploiting a child in drug-related activity. Although those factors overlapped, they justified a substantial uplift. Ajayi [2017] EWCA Crim 2011 supported the careful scrutiny of claimed lesser roles in professional County lines offending.
4. Delay since apprehension is not inherently mitigating. Applying the conditions identified in Noor [2024] EWCA Crim 714, the relevant delay of over 15 months was unexplained, was not the appellant’s fault, and had detrimental consequences. During it, he had obtained and maintained work, secured a public service vehicle licence, and begun full-time work as a bus driver; the late proceedings ended that progress.
5. The judge had mentioned delay, rehabilitation, prison conditions, and the impact on the appellant’s family, but the only identified reduction was for the absence of relevant previous convictions. That reduction did not adequately reflect the overall mitigation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the concurrent five-year sentences, and substituted concurrent sentences of four years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Inner London: On 26 October 2023, convicted the appellant of conspiracies to supply cocaine and heroin. On 27 October 2023, imposed concurrent sentences of five years’ imprisonment.