R v Nigel Roberts

On 5 June 2025 in the Crown Court at Chester, the Appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply a controlled drug of Class B (cannabis), contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 . On 27 November 2025, the Appellant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. He was sentenced at the same time as his co-defendants in the conspiracy. Given the issues raised in the appeal it is necessary, in describing the Appellant's offending, to set out in summary the respective roles of the Appellant and his co-defendants.

The case involved the importation of cannabis by Ryan Pugh, reflected in count 2 on the indictment, and its supply in the Ellesmere Port area giving rise to the conspiracy in count 1 which involved all of the defendants.

The supply line operated under the name "Tokes EP" and "Tokes EP new" ("EP" being a reference to Ellesmere Port). The defendant, Connor Brookes, was arrested on 27 March 2024 and found to be in possession of a large quantity of cannabis, valued at £4,270 to £6,150 and labelled as if it were confectionary.

On 4 April 2024 a warrant was executed at the home address of Ryan Pugh and his partner, Leonah Tushingham. A significant quantity of cannabis, valued at between £4,590 and £5,885, was discovered in a locked outhouse. Also recovered were packaging materials, scales and a mobile telephone. The packaging of the cannabis seized from the outhouse was similar to the packaging seized from Brookes the week before. Interrogation of Ryan Pugh's mobile phone revealed that he was directing Brookes by way of messages to deliver cannabis to addresses in the Ellesmere Port area. He was also directing Michael Pugh and the Appellant to fulfil similar roles delivering cannabis in the area. It became apparent that street suppliers working for this organised crime group used electric cycles, or e-bikes, a number of which were recovered from the address of Ryan Pugh and Tushingham and from the home of the defendant, Karen Wildman.

The Appellant was arrested on 2 August 2024 and was found to be in possession of cannabis for personal use, some of which was in similar distinctive confectionary packaging to that recovered following the arrests of Ryan Pugh, Wildman and Brookes.

The prosecution case was that Ryan Pugh was the head of the organised crime group whilst Brookes, the Appellant and Michael Pugh were street dealers. Wildman provided storage and reception facilities, prepared cannabis for onward supply and charged e-bikes used by the street dealers. Craig Ambrose, another defendant, was a courier and Daniel Lewis bagged cannabis for onward supply. The Appellant's role was therefore the same as the other street dealers, Connor Brookes and Michael Pugh. All three street dealers, the Appellant, Brookes and Michael Pugh, were treated in the same way as far as sentence was concerned. As Ms De Ferrer put it on the Appellant's behalf, they were sentenced “as a unit”. Given that their roles were identical, it is not surprising that the Judge took this approach. Their offending was categorised as category 3, significant role, under the relevant guideline. The Judge followed the guidelines for that category. The categorisation is not criticised. The starting point was 12 months with a range of 26 weeks to 3 years. The Judge moved from the starting point to 24 months by reference to the community impact of the commercial distribution of drugs in Ellesmere Port and the fact that this was an organised crime group. These were the principal aggravating features and were common to all of the defendants. There can be no sensible criticism of that upward step in sentencing. The Judge then made a downward adjustment for mitigation to 18 months. In doing so he expressly referred to the common mitigating factor shared by each of the street dealers that they were users funding their own addiction by offending. He then reduced the sentences appropriately for early pleas of guilty passing a sentence of 12 months.

Whilst it is correct that the Judge did not set out the Appellant's personal mitigation expressly in his sentencing remarks, that was true of the two co-defendants, Brookes and Michael Pugh as well. The Judge did refer to "the reports and other mitigation that is in the reports" when considering the Imposition Guideline. He had just heard submissions in mitigation from counsel which, as the Appellant's written submissions made clear, had dealt fully with personal mitigation. Whilst the reference to personal mitigation may have been brief, that was in the context of well-structured, clear and concise sentencing remarks in which the Judge passed sentence on eight defendants.

The sole ground of appeal is that the Judge had no proper regard to the relevant matters in the Appellant's personal mitigation and that his personal circumstances were distinguishable from those of Michael Pugh and Connor Brookes who were given identical sentences and the same reduction for mitigation.

The grounds of appeal assert that the Appellant had mitigation which was not available to his co-defendants which was, in summary, as follows. Prior to the offence taking place the Appellant suffered significant bereavements, an injury at work, which led to action being taken against him ultimately resulting in his bankruptcy and the end of his marriage. Prior to and during the period of the offending, between 13 October 2023 and 5 June 2024, he experienced homelessness and resided in his car when he became addicted to cannabis. These circumstances led to his involvement in the drugs conspiracy. In March 2024 the Appellant was the victim of a hit-and-run assault which has resulted in disability and he faces further surgery. Although his difficulties in this respect are referred to in the pre-sentence report, there was no medical evidence before the Judge. The perpetrator of the alleged hit-and-run assault has been charged and the Appellant is awaiting a trial in respect of this incident.

In his pre-sentence report and verified by his key worker, there is reference to the Appellant voluntarily engaging with drugs and alcohol services in Ellesmere Port. He attends regular sessions with his key workers, and was subject to voluntary drug testing in the period prior to sentence. Further to this he had at that stage secured stable accommodation where he had resided for the year before he was sentenced.

Whether or not these factors give rise to anything which can properly be regarded as a disparity argument, we do not think such an argument stands analysis. The Appellant was aged 43 at the time of sentence. He was by some distance the older and more experienced of the street couriers. He had four convictions for six offences between 8 October 1999 and 1 April 2024. These included simple possession of cannabis for which he was fined on 8 November 1999 and 21 January 2022. The most recent convictions involved driving whilst having consumed cannabis.

Brookes was 23 at the time of the offending and had very limited convictions, mostly relating to driving after consuming cannabis. This is similar to the Appellant's recent antecedents. Brookes’s pre-sentence report set out a number of matters which might be thought to rank equally with the Appellant's in terms of their mitigating effect, including homelessness, caring for his mother and an addiction to cannabis. He was also amenable to drugs-related intervention, had been candid about his difficulties and set out his ambition to gain employment and turn his life around.

Michael Pugh is still only 21. He failed to attend for his pre-sentence report interview but the most powerful mitigating feature in his case, apart from his age, was that he had no previous convictions at all. We do not consider therefore there are material differences between the Appellant and his co-defendants which should have resulted in any significantly different sentence in the Appellant's case. We have considered whether, irrespective of the position of his co-defendants the Appellant was given inadequate credit for his mitigation so that the sentence would be considered manifestly excessive. We do not consider that it was. We have also considered the Imposition Guideline and whether it would have been open to the Judge to suspend the sentence and whether in the circumstances he should have done so. Again, we do not consider that there is any force in such an argument. The Appellant was involved in a commercial drugs supply operation over a long period, with significant adverse community social effects. The sentence was within the applicable range and entirely appropriate.

For those reasons, we dismiss the appeal but we are grateful to Ms De Ferrer for her succinct submissions.