R v Omar Mechita

When sentencing drug-supply offences, a leading role may be inferred from cumulative circumstantial evidence. Quantity, purity, packaging, associated cash and other drugs may support findings of commercial-scale dealing, close links to the original source and an expectation of substantial financial advantage. Indicative quantities and starting points in the Sentencing Council guidelines are not rigid ceilings. The sentence may be adjusted upwards to reflect quantity and overall offending, subject to proportionality and totality. Where concurrent sentences are imposed, the lead sentence may be adjusted to reflect the total criminality. Sentencing at different times does not itself breach totality where the offences differ in kind and timing. Substantial mitigation and credit for a guilty plea may still leave the resulting sentence proportionate.

After pleading guilty, the appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Harrow on 28 November 2024 for drug-supply, counterfeit-currency and possession-of-criminal-property offences. The cocaine sentence of three years and two months was ordered to run consecutively to an existing 20-year sentence for conspiracy to murder; the remaining sentences were concurrent.

By leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against sentence. He argued that his role was significant rather than leading, that the starting points for the cocaine and ketamine offences were excessive, that the same criminality had been counted twice in the possession-of-criminal-property sentences, and that the consecutive sentence offended totality.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. Role in the drug offences. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the appellant performed a leading role. The relevant indicators included directing or organising buying and selling on a commercial scale, close links to the original source and an expectation of substantial financial advantage. Those matters could be inferred from the quantity and purity of the cocaine, the packaging, the cash found, and the quantity of other drugs. Direct evidence such as text messages or ledgers was not required.
2. Drug sentences. The judge was entitled to increase the category 3 cocaine starting point from eight years and six months to nine years and six months to reflect the quantity involved. The reductions for delay, personal mitigation and the guilty plea produced a sentence of three years and two months, which was not manifestly excessive. Even on the alternative basis of a significant role, the sentence would have been justified after adjusting for the overall offending and the concurrent sentences. The ketamine sentence was likewise not manifestly excessive.
3. Criminal property. The amount of £20,590 justified treating the offence as category 5 with high culpability and a three-year starting point. After the appropriate reductions, the resulting one-year sentence was not manifestly excessive.
4. Totality. There was no breach merely because the appellant was sentenced at different times for offences of a different kind committed at different times. A consecutive sentence was appropriate. The earlier conviction had not been treated as an aggravating feature, although it could have been, and substantial allowance had been made for delay. The total period of imprisonment was proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 7 October 2025, the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 1358.
• Crown Court at Harrow: On 28 November 2024, His Honour Judge Ezzat sentenced the appellant for drug, counterfeit-currency and possession-of-criminal-property offences.