R v Alfie Clive Rhodes

In sentencing multiple offences, the totality principle permits an uplift from a guideline starting point, but the increase must be justified by the overall criminality and remain proportionate to the offender’s role and circumstances. An uplift of more than a year above the guideline starting point was manifestly excessive where the offending lasted only weeks, the offender’s significant role was not at the upper end, and substantial personal mitigation was present. Youth and immaturity, limited previous convictions, difficult circumstances, remorse and steps towards rehabilitation may balance aggravating features. Applying the appropriate guilty-plea reduction to the guideline starting point produced a sentence of 40 months.

The appellant pleaded guilty to offences involving the supply and possession of Class A and Class B drugs, acquiring criminal property, and breach of a conditional discharge. The Crown Court at Isleworth imposed a total sentence of 4 years 4 months, treating the first four counts as the lead offences.

With permission, the appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that insufficient weight had been given to his age, immaturity, limited antecedents, drug use, debts, difficult personal circumstances, remorse and rehabilitation. The central issue was whether the increase from the guideline starting point to the sentence before credit for plea was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentences of 4 years 4 months on counts 1 to 4 were quashed. A sentence of 40 months on each count was substituted, all sentences remaining concurrent with one another, the sentences on counts 5 and 6, and the sentence for breach of the conditional discharge.
2. The categorisation of the offending as category 3 street dealing, with a significant role and a guideline starting point of 4.5 years, was not challenged and was accepted. Sentencing on multiple counts and the totality principle entitled the judge to apply an uplift reflecting the global criminality. The breach of the earlier conditional discharge could also aggravate the seriousness.
3. Those considerations did not justify increasing the sentence by more than 12 months above the guideline starting point. The offending occurred over a relatively short period. Although the appellant had a significant role, he was not towards the upper end of the enterprise. His drug use and debts explained, without excusing, his involvement.
4. The appellant’s youth and immaturity, difficult circumstances, single previous conviction for possession, remorse, reflection and attempts to change course were material mitigating features. They balanced the aggravating factors and meant that, had the matter gone to trial, the appropriate sentence would have been the guideline starting point of 4.5 years.
5. A sentencing judge need not set out precise mathematical calculations at every stage. However, the sentencing remarks here indicated that the nominal starting term remained more than 12 months above the guideline starting point without a proper basis. That elevation was manifestly excessive. Applying 25 per cent credit for the guilty pleas to the appropriate starting point resulted in 40 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 15 October 2025, allowed the appeal, quashed the sentences of 4 years 4 months on counts 1 to 4, and substituted concurrent sentences of 40 months.
• Crown Court at Isleworth — On 26 November 2024, HHJ Simon Davis sentenced the appellant to 4 years 4 months on the lead counts, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts and for breach of the conditional discharge.