R v Zakariya Subeir

In sentencing for drug supply, the defendant’s role and duration of involvement are distinct matters. Duration may mitigate the sentence, but does not determine the role category. A defendant involved for only a short period may still have a significant role where the evidence shows close connection with the operation, awareness of its scale and conduct beyond merely answering a drugs-line phone. The appellate question is whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle; a different method of expressing the calculation does not itself justify interference.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs and one offence of possessing criminal property. The Crown Court at Isleworth imposed concurrent sentences of 31 months’ imprisonment for the drugs offences and three months for possessing criminal property. The appellant contended that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive and that his limited involvement placed him on the borderline between a significant and lesser role. The central issues were the effect of the limited duration of his involvement on role categorisation and whether the sentence imposed was excessive or wrong in principle.

Appeal dismissed. The sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

1. When applying the sentencing guidelines, the court must assess the role played by the defendant separately from the period for which that role was performed. The duration of involvement is relevant to the sentence, but does not determine the role category.
2. The appellant’s involvement, although limited in time, was not a lesser role. The evidence showed a close connection with the drugs line, awareness of the scale of the operation, travel with the line to Bournemouth and possession of £2,000 in cash. His role on the relevant day involved more than merely holding the drugs-line phone and giving collection directions.
3. The judge used a starting point of four and a half years for a significant role, reduced it by 12 months to reflect the short period of control and the effect of recall on the credit for time spent on remand, and then applied 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea. The available mitigation, including mental-health difficulties and remorse, was adequately reflected in the reduction.
4. Although the sentencing remarks could have explained the calculation more fully and the sentence could have been expressed differently, the appellate question was whether the sentence ultimately imposed was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. It was not.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence on 19 August 2025.
2. Crown Court at Isleworth: following guilty pleas, imposed concurrent sentences of 31 months’ imprisonment for each drugs offence and three months’ imprisonment for possessing criminal property on 12 November 2024.