R v Dwayne Salmon

A guideline reduction for steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour depends on a demonstrated connection between the substance misuse and the offending. Evidence that an offender uses drugs, or has engaged positively with treatment in custody, is not enough where the offending is a financially motivated drug-supply operation and the evidence does not show that addiction drove it. The evidence must be assessed as a whole, including the organisation and scale of the offending and any indication that the offender minimised involvement. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with sentence unless it is manifestly excessive.

After pleading guilty, the appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Inner London to 46 months’ imprisonment for possession of class A drugs with intent to supply, possession of class B drugs, and possession of criminal property. He appealed with leave, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to give effect to steps taken to address offending and drug addiction, and that the starting point was too high.

The Court of Appeal considered the relevant Sentencing Council guideline, a prison report, the evidence about the appellant’s motivation, and the significance of rehabilitation in custody. The central questions were whether the addiction-related mitigation was available and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the 46-month custodial sentence.

1. The applicable Sentencing Council guideline recognises determination or demonstration of steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour as a mitigating factor. The accompanying guidance indicates that a reduction may be justified where offending is driven by, or closely associated with, drugs or alcohol abuse.
2. The mitigation depends on the connection between substance misuse and offending. The appellant was operating a drug-supply business, supplying crack cocaine to apparently vulnerable users, and earning significant sums. There was evidence of cannabis use but none before the sentencing judge that he was addicted to crack cocaine. Those circumstances were materially different from the burglary in R v Mahon [2017] EWCA Crim 102, where the court linked the offending to alcohol and drugs abuse.
3. The prison report recorded the appellant’s account of regular crack cocaine and heroin use and assessed a willingness to address substance misuse. Read as a whole, however, it also indicated possible minimisation of his involvement and financial motivation. It therefore did not support the conclusion that the offending was driven by addiction.
4. Even taking the report and custody conduct into account, the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the management role, the drugs and cash found at the appellant’s address, the previous conviction for similar conduct, and limited mitigation. No pre-sentence report was required. The appeal was dismissed, although the court commended his conduct and behaviour in custody.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On appeal with leave, dismissed the appeal and upheld the 46-month sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 1201 .
2. Crown Court at Inner London — Following guilty pleas, sentenced the appellant to 46 months’ imprisonment for the three offences described in the judgment.