R v Bradley Roberts

On 18 July 2025, in the Crown Court at Liverpool, the appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of possessing a Class B drug with intent to supply (ketamine), contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Seven months later on 10 February 2026 at the same court he was sentenced to 27 months' immediate imprisonmentby HHJ David Potter. He appeals against sentence with leave of the Single Judge.

The appellant was one of four defendants charged following a two-year police investigation between January 2023 and June 2025 into what was considered to be an organised crime gang by the Merseyside Police.

On 5 February 2024, a warrant was executed at a unit in an industrial estate in Melling, of which the appellant was the tenant. Police seized, amongst other things, firearms and ammunition from the unit, a carrier bag containing three bags of white powder containing 301 grams of the Class B drug ketamine, with a street value of between £3,010 and £6,020, with the appellant's DNA on the packaging, three sets of scales, multiple bags, a plastic container and a set of gloves. They also found a wrap of white powder containing 6.34 grams of ketamine with a street value of between £60-£120 and a set of scales with residues of cocaine and ketamine.

The appellant was arrested and interviewed on 12 February 2024. He provided a prepared statement in which he stated that he had rented the unit with another person he was fearful of naming and claimed that he had no idea that some of the items seized had been in the container and denied ownership of any of the drugs, firearms or bicycles recovered from the unit. He then made "no comment" to all questions asked of him.

Whilst his co-defendants faced counts of conspiracy to supply class B drugs, and the principal co-defendant, Taylor McArthur, also faced counts of conspiracy to supply the Class A drug cocaine, conspiracy to possess ammunition without a firearm certificate and various counts of possession of prohibited firearms and ammunition, the appellant faced only the one count of possession with intent to supply the class B drug of ketamine on 6 February 2024, the day of the police raid.

The appellant was not the first to plead guilty to any of the charges but he did plead guilty at the PTPH and was entitled to 25 per cent credit to any sentence that would be imposed.

The appellant had no previous convictions. He was 23 at the date of commission of the offence and 25 at the date of sentence. He had supportive references from his employer, Frank Rogers Building Contractors, where he worked as a project manager, and from his parents. His mitigation was that he had become involved in selling ketamine because of his own ketamine misuse and was supplying to his peers. It was uncharacteristic youthful foolishness on his part and he had learnt his lesson by being caught. He was very remorseful and could not now understand why he had become involved, since he had a good job and prospects and did not need the money. He was praised by his employer for being a dedicated, conscientious individual who took great pride in his work and he had a bright and strong future ahead of him. It was submitted that he was ripe for rehabilitation.

He had an encouraging pre-sentence report. It was reported that he had stopped taking ketamine himself for the last 2 years and displayed a good knowledge and understanding of the consequences on the community and individuals of his behaviour. He was well educated to degree level, had no debts or issues with gambling, he lived alone in a property owned by his parents and had a long-term girlfriend. He had no physical or mental health issues. He was assessed as being at a low risk of reoffending and reconviction over the next 2 years. A number of community orders were suggested as suitable should the court be minded to impose a community-based penalty.

It was common ground that under the Sentencing Council Guidelines the appellant had a significant role in the supply of drugs found in his possession. As to the categorisation of harm, the guidelines gave an indicative quantity 150 grams of ketamine for category 3 and for the more serious category 2 it is 1 kilogram. The sentencing judge accepted the offence fell within category 3 harm at 300g and given the appellant’s significant role the starting point under the guidelines would be a 1-year custodial sentence with a range of 26 weeks to 3 years. However the Judge found that the quantity of ketamine involved meant it was an aggravating feature requiring an upward adjustment to the starting point.

The sentencing judge noted that the widespread use of ketamine was an increasing problem in Merseyside that he described as being:

“… literally corrosive to the bodies of those who take it. They are mostly young people who suffer years of problems with their bladders and intestines, suffering chronic pain, which is only alleviated by taking ever increasing amounts of this drug.”

The judge noted the appellant had no previous convictions, had used his time constructively and had stopped taking the drug himself. He made an upward adjustment to the top of the range to 3 years and then deducted 25 per cent to reflect credit for the guilty plea to arrive at a final sentence of 27 months.

The Grounds of Appeal submitted that the judge made too great an upward adjustment given the appellant’s impressive mitigation to reach his final sentence.

We agree. The judge was right to make a very significant uplift to reflect the fact that it was 300 grams of ketamine, double the indicative volume for category 3, worth between £3,000 and £6,000, which was stored in a commercial unit that the appellant was renting, but although they were aggravating features, it did not take the offending to the very top of the range. The appellant was also entitled to some reduction for his lack of previous convictions and mitigation.

We consider that the uplift would have taken the sentence to about 2 years and he would have then been entitled to a downward adjustment in the region of 4 months for mitigation and 25 per cent reduction for his guilty plea, resulting in a final sentence of around 15 months' custody.

A sentence of 15 months' custody would bring the Sentencing Council Guidelines on the Imposition of Community Orders and Custodial Sentences into play. Whilst there were factors indicating that it may be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence given the probation officer’s assessment of the realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community and that the appellant did not present a high risk of reoffending or harm, that has to be weighed against the seriousness of the offence.

We conclude that given the quantity of drugs found, the professionalism of the operation, with all the accoutrements and paraphernalia in the rented unit that the appellant had co rented, for weighing and packaging the drugs for sale, it was an offence that was so serious that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody. It would not be appropriate to suspend the sentence.

We therefore allow the appeal. We quash the sentence of 27 months' custody and replace it with an immediate term of imprisonment of 15 months. It also follows that the statutory surcharge should also be reduced from £228 to £187.