Court of Appeal upholds Dwayne Salmon's drug supply sentence

The Court of Appeal has upheld a 46 month sentence imposed on a man convicted of running a drug supply operation from his home, rejecting arguments that his efforts to address substance misuse should have reduced the term.

Dwayne Salmon had appealed against his sentence for possession of a class A controlled drug with intent to supply, possession of a class B controlled drug, and possessing criminal property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Court of Appeal, comprising Lady Justice Yip, Mrs Justice Farbey and Mrs Justice Thornton, dismissed the appeal in a judgement handed down on 17 September 2026.

The offending came to light on 16 July 2025, when police observed Salmon on CCTV apparently conducting two drug deals on Peckham High Street. Officers arrested him, and a nearby female drug user attempted to swallow a bag of drugs as they intervened. Salmon, though already handcuffed, tried to flee and was pursued and detained. Car keys that fell from his pocket during the chase led officers to a vehicle in which £180 in cash was found, while a subsequent custody search uncovered cannabis concealed in his underwear.

A search of his home followed, where a police dog located a hide in a stairwell containing approximately 214 grams of crack cocaine, 11.5 grams of cocaine, several mobile phones, weighing scales and over £1,100 in cash. Messages retrieved from a seized phone were said to be indicative of involvement in drug supply. Salmon pleaded guilty to all three offences.

At first instance, the Recorder categorised the offending as significant role, Category 3, with a starting point of four years, later adjusted to four years and six months before a 15 per cent reduction for the guilty plea produced the total sentence of 46 months. A concurrent six month sentence was imposed for possession of criminal property, with the Recorder observing that Salmon was clearly earning well from his drug dealing. No separate penalty was imposed for the cannabis offence.

On appeal, Salmon's counsel argued that the Recorder had wrongly disregarded steps taken to address his offending behaviour, contrary to the relevant sentencing guideline, and had failed to give any credit for his efforts to tackle his own drug addiction. It was further submitted that the starting point should have been closer to three and a half years.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. The relevant guideline mitigation, concerning steps taken to address addiction or offending behaviour, applies where offending is driven by or closely associated with substance abuse, such as theft committed to fund a habit. The court found this was not such a case. Salmon had held a management role in a drugs operation supplying crack cocaine to vulnerable users and was financially benefiting from it, and there was no evidence before the Recorder that he was himself addicted to crack cocaine.

A prison report obtained for the appeal was described as positive about Salmon's conduct in custody, recording his account of regular crack cocaine and heroin use at the time of the offending. However, the report's author also suggested Salmon may have minimised his role and considered his offending to have been financially motivated, a view the court found did not support the claim that addiction had driven his conduct.

Noting Salmon's management role, the drugs and cash recovered from his home, and a previous conviction for similar conduct, the court found the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the appeal.