R v Liam Lieske

When several offences are sentenced concurrently, the sentence for the lead offence must be adjusted upwards where necessary to reflect totality. For street dealing involving more than 5 grams but substantially less than 1 kilogram of cocaine, an offender with a significant role falls within category 3 of the guidelines. The appropriate starting point must also account for associated offending. Allowances for delay and personal mitigation must be assessed in context and may be reduced where excessive. A sentence exceeding the maximum term that can currently be suspended cannot be suspended.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to supply and possession of cannabis with intent to supply. The Crown Court at Reading imposed four years’ imprisonment for the cocaine offence and a concurrent sentence of 16 months for the cannabis offence. The appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that the starting point was too high and that the resulting sentence should have been suspended. The central issues were the correct guideline category and starting point, totality, mitigation, guilty plea credit and suspension.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence for the cocaine offence was reduced to 32 months’ imprisonment. The concurrent sentence for the cannabis offence remained unchanged.

1. The court agreed that the cocaine offence should be treated as the lead offence and that the cannabis sentence should run concurrently. That approach required an upward adjustment to the lead sentence so that the overall sentence reflected totality.
2. The offending involved street dealing. The cocaine quantity was substantially below 1 kilogram but exceeded 5 grams. The case therefore fell within category 3 of the guidelines. For an offender with a significant role, the guideline starting point was four years and six months, with a range of three years six months to seven years. The cocaine offending alone fell towards the lower end of that bracket, but the associated cannabis offending required an appropriate adjustment. The correct overall starting point was five years.
3. The sentencing judge was entitled to allow for delay and personal mitigation. However, a 25 per cent allowance was somewhat generous in view of the appellant’s previous drugs conviction. The proper reduction for those factors was one year, reducing the sentence from five years to four years.
4. Applying the one-third reduction for the guilty plea produced a sentence of 32 months. That exceeded the maximum term currently capable of suspension, so the issue of suspension did not arise.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 895 , allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment for the cocaine offence.
• Crown Court at Reading: imposed four years’ imprisonment for the cocaine offence and a concurrent sentence of 16 months for the cannabis offence.