R v Stephen Adetoyi

Related drug-line offences committed over a short period may be assessed together, but the aggregate sentence must remain proportionate to the guideline ranges and totality. An undisputed basis of plea reducing culpability for one operation does not automatically reduce the offender’s role in another operation where he controlled that line. Category 3 harm applies where the operation as a whole sold drugs directly to users, even if the offender did not personally do so. A one-third guilty-plea reduction requires an indication at the first stage of proceedings. A surcharge added administratively, without being imposed by the judge, is unlawful.

The appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Winchester to four years’ custody for two counts of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs. One count concerned the Diego drugs line, which he controlled for a short period. The other concerned the Troy line, for which he pleaded guilty at the first Crown Court opportunity on a basis that he had been pressured to repay an earlier drug debt.

He challenged the starting point, role assessment, harm category, guilty-plea credit, treatment of his basis of plea, totality and delay. The central issue was whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Sentence and role. The court considered the two offences together because the periods of offending were relatively short. The judge was entitled to treat the appellant’s role in the Diego operation as significant. The basis of plea described pressure in relation to the Troy line, but said nothing about pressure in relation to Diego, which the appellant controlled. The sentence for the Diego offence was within the guideline range, and the aggregate sentence was only modestly above the starting point for a single offence. It was not manifestly excessive.
2. Harm category. Category 3 was appropriate. The operation as a whole sold drugs directly to users. It was immaterial that the appellant might not personally have sold directly to users.
3. Guilty-plea credit. The appellant should have received 25 per cent credit for the pleas. A one-third reduction was not established merely because the plea was entered at the plea and trial preparation hearing. Under the relevant guideline and R v Plaku [2021] EWCA Crim 568, one-third is available where a guilty plea is indicated at the first stage of proceedings. The Better Case Management form should be uploaded to the Digital Case System so that any indication in the Magistrates’ Court can be verified.
4. Surcharge. Under section 42 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the judge had a duty to impose the surcharge. The sentencing remarks indicated that it had not been imposed, although it appeared on the record as an administrative addition. Following R v Jones [2018] EWCA Crim 2994, the surcharge had not been imposed lawfully. Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 precluded the Court of Appeal from imposing it on appeal. The record was therefore corrected to show that no surcharge had been imposed. The appeal succeeded only to that limited extent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 5 November 2025, the appeal was allowed to the limited extent that the Crown Court record was corrected to show that no surcharge had been imposed. The custodial sentence was upheld: [2025] EWCA Crim 1393.
• Crown Court at Winchester — HHJ Taylor sentenced the appellant to four years’ custody for two drug-supply offences, recorded as three years on count 1 and one consecutive year on count 2.