R v Bradley Roberts

When sentencing possession of drugs with intent to supply, a quantity substantially exceeding the guideline’s indicative quantity may justify a significant uplift. It does not automatically justify moving to the top of the sentencing range. The court must also give proper weight to mitigation, including the offender’s lack of previous convictions and prospects of rehabilitation.

Where the resulting sentence falls within the range in which suspension must be considered, rehabilitation prospects and risk of reoffending must be weighed against the seriousness of the offence. Immediate custody remains appropriate where the quantity, organisation and equipment involved make the offence too serious for punishment in the community.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Liverpool to possessing ketamine with intent to supply, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He had no previous convictions and presented substantial personal mitigation, including employment, remorse, rehabilitation and a low risk of reoffending.

The sentencing judge treated the quantity of ketamine and the appellant’s significant role as warranting an upward adjustment to the top of the guideline range, imposed 27 months’ immediate imprisonment and allowed 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea. The appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that the uplift was excessive and that his mitigation had been insufficiently reflected. The central issues were the appropriate sentence and whether any custodial term should be suspended.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of 27 months’ custody was quashed and replaced with 15 months’ immediate imprisonment. The statutory surcharge was reduced from £228 to £187.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to make a very significant uplift. The quantity was approximately twice the guideline’s indicative quantity for category 3 harm, had a substantial street value, and was stored in a commercial unit with equipment for weighing and packaging drugs for sale.
3. Those aggravating features did not take the offending to the very top of the available range. The appellant’s lack of previous convictions and mitigation required recognition. The appropriate pre-credit sentence was approximately two years, with a reduction of about four months for mitigation and a further 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea, producing 15 months.
4. That term required consideration of whether custody should be suspended under the Sentencing Council Guidelines on the Imposition of Community Orders and Custodial Sentences. The appellant had a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community and presented a low risk of reoffending or harm.
5. Those factors were outweighed by the seriousness of the offending. The quantity of drugs, the professionalism of the operation, and the associated weighing and packaging paraphernalia meant that appropriate punishment could be achieved only by immediate custody. Suspension was therefore inappropriate.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence was quashed and replaced with 15 months’ immediate imprisonment: [2026] EWCA Crim 494.
2. Crown Court at Liverpool: HHJ David Potter imposed 27 months’ immediate imprisonment after the appellant’s guilty plea.