R v Nigel Roberts

Sentencing co-defendants as a unit does not require identical sentences where their personal circumstances, antecedents or mitigation materially differ. An appeal based on disparity must identify a material difference capable of justifying a significantly different sentence. A sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because the judge’s remarks do not expressly set out every aspect of personal mitigation, where the judge has considered the reports and heard submissions. An appellate court will also decline to interfere where the sentence is within the applicable range and the circumstances do not justify suspension.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Chester to conspiracy to supply cannabis. He was one of three street dealers in an organised commercial supply operation. On 27 November 2025, the sentencing judge imposed 12 months’ imprisonment, treating the three street dealers alike.

The appellant argued that his personal mitigation materially distinguished him from his co-defendants. He relied on bereavements, injury, bankruptcy, marital breakdown, homelessness, cannabis addiction, disability following an assault, and engagement with treatment services. The central issues were whether the sentence involved unjustified disparity, was manifestly excessive because insufficient weight had been given to mitigation, or should have been suspended.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant’s sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was within the applicable guideline range and was appropriate.
2. The fact that the appellant and his co-defendants were sentenced as a unit did not establish improper disparity. The court compared their ages, antecedents and personal mitigation. The appellant was substantially older and more experienced, with previous convictions. The co-defendants had mitigation of comparable or greater weight, including youth, limited or no previous convictions, homelessness, caring responsibilities and drug addiction. There were therefore no material differences requiring a significantly different sentence.
3. The sentence was not manifestly excessive. Although the judge did not set out the appellant’s personal mitigation expressly, he referred to the reports and other mitigation, had heard detailed submissions, and gave clear and structured sentencing remarks addressing the relevant common mitigation and the reduction for the guilty plea.
4. There was no force in the argument that the sentence should have been suspended. The offending involved commercial drug supply over a prolonged period and had significant adverse effects on the community. Those features, together with the sentence’s position within the applicable range, justified the sentence imposed.

• Crown Court at Chester: The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply cannabis and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on 27 November 2025.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed.