Court of Appeal upholds sentence in R v Stephen Adetoyi county lines drugs case

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against a four-year custodial sentence for operating two county lines drug operations, finding the sentence neither manifestly excessive nor inappropriately calculated despite acknowledged procedural irregularities.

Stephen Adetoyi was convicted of two counts of being concerned in the supply of cocaine contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Count 1 involved the "Diego" county drugs line operating in Salisbury between January and April 2024, where police analysis identified Adetoyi as a controller who travelled with the line to Southampton, Melksham and Swindon. Count 2 concerned the separate "Troy" line operating in the Avon and Somerset area for six days in April 2024, during which police found 17 bags of cocaine worth £12,000 in his possession.

The circumstances were particularly concerning given Adetoyi's previous conviction in February 2021 for operating the same Troy line, for which he received five years' imprisonment. His basis of plea claimed that following his 2021 arrest, he was considered in debt to those above him, was threatened whilst in custody, and upon release to Lewisham was pressured to resume drug dealing to repay this debt.

Grounds of appeal

The appeal challenged the starting point as excessive, argued that count 2 should have been treated as the lead offence attracting 33 per cent credit rather than the 20 per cent awarded for count 1, claimed no credit was given for the early guilty plea on count 2, and contended that insufficient regard was paid to the basis of plea and overall totality.

The Court's analysis

Lord Justice Singh, Mrs Justice May DBE and Mrs Justice Thornton DBE rejected these submissions. The Court accepted that the sentencing judge did not explicitly reference the basis of plea, but noted crucially that whilst the basis explained pressure to operate the Troy line, nothing suggested similar pressure regarding the Diego line. The Court therefore upheld the finding of a significant role in relation to Diego, given Adetoyi's position as controller.

The Court also rejected the categorisation of harm as Category 4, confirming that direct sales to users placed the offending in Category 3. For a Level 3 significant role offence, the guideline starting point is four-and-a-half years with a range extending to seven years. With aggravating features including previous offending and commission whilst on licence, the Court found that even with 25 per cent credit for plea, the sentence after trial would have been five years and four months—comfortably within the guideline range.

On credit for plea, whilst the Court accepted 25 per cent was appropriate rather than the 20 per cent given, it rejected the submission that 33 per cent credit applied. Citing R v Plaku [2021] EWCA Crim 568, the Court emphasised that one-third credit requires a guilty plea indicated at the first stage of proceedings, with proper documentation on the Better Case Management form being essential.

Surcharge irregularity

The appeal succeeded on one narrow technical point. The Crown Court record showed a £228 surcharge, but the judge had not actually imposed this despite the mandatory duty under section 42 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Following R v Jones [2018] EWCA Crim 2994, the Court directed correction of the record to reflect that no surcharge was imposed, being precluded by section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 from imposing it retrospectively.

The judgement demonstrates the Court's careful attention to sentencing guidelines whilst maintaining that sentences well within the applicable range will rarely be disturbed on appeal.

Copyright & permissions