The situation
Greater Manchester Police’s County Line Team investigated a regional drug line under Operation Peacemaker. Officers gathered telecommunications data, cell site analysis, and CCTV footage, indicating that the defendant acted as a runner and sometimes as the line holder. The prosecution alleged supply of cocaine, crack cocaine, diamorphine (all Class A drugs), and possession of cannabis (Class B) with intent, as well as possessing criminal property.
The client pleaded guilty on the basis that his involvement was at street level, acting under the instruction of others. Defence submissions emphasised that he was neither a controller nor organiser, but performed a limited, subordinate role within the operation. The court accepted this basis of plea, distinguishing between street-level activity and leadership of the line.
The charges
Our criminal defence team represented the defendant throughout the investigation and court proceedings. Lead Solicitor Fosia Jury scrutinised the prosecution's evidence base, including telecommunications data, cell site analysis, and CCTV material. We negotiated a plea to all counts on the agreed factual basis that the defendant operated as a runner, holder, and occasional operator of the line under instructions from others, rather than as a controlling or leading figure. We prepared and presented detailed mitigation highlighting the defendant's limited, subordinate role within the wider operation. We instructed specialist external counsel from 6 Pump Court Chambers and 9 Lincoln's Court to ensure expert advocacy at each stage.
The defendant faced the following five counts:
- Being Concerned in Supplying a Controlled Drug of Class A (Cocaine)
- Being Concerned in Supplying a Controlled Drug of Class A (Crack Cocaine)
- Being Concerned in Supplying a Controlled Drug of Class A (Diamorphine)
- Possessing a Controlled Drug of Class B with Intent (Cannabis)
- Possessing Criminal Property
He entered guilty pleas to all counts after legal advice and full consideration of the evidence, with mitigation arguing runner and subordinate status.
Our approach
Our criminal defence team represented the defendant through both investigation and proceedings. The team, including Fosia Jury as lead solicitor, closely scrutinised the prosecution’s evidence—telecommunications data, cell site records, and CCTV.We negotiated guilty pleas to all counts on the agreed basis that the defendant acted under instructions and operated as a runner and line holder rather than in a leading role. We developed and presented detailed mitigation, focusing on the client’s limited and subordinate involvement. We instructed specialist external counsel from 6 Pump Court Chambers and 9 Lincoln’s Court to support advocacy at each stage.
The outcome
Our criminal defence team represented the defendant through both investigation and proceedings. The team, including Fosia Jury as lead solicitor, closely scrutinised the prosecution’s evidence—telecommunications data, cell site records, and CCTV.We negotiated guilty pleas to all counts on the agreed basis that the defendant acted under instructions and operated as a runner and line holder rather than in a leading role. We developed and presented detailed mitigation, focusing on the client’s limited and subordinate involvement. We instructed specialist external counsel from 6 Pump Court Chambers and 9 Lincoln’s Court to support advocacy at each stage.
"The art of cross examination lies not in the aggression of the question, but in the precision of its construction."
"A witness who remains calm under questioning speaks louder to a jury than one who becomes defensive."
Legal disclaimer and restricted access
The details provided in this case study are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Every criminal case is unique; the outcomes described here depend on specific facts and the application of current English law, which is subject to change.
Viewing this material does not establish a solicitor-client relationship. If you are facing criminal charges, you should seek immediate advice from a qualified legal professional. This firm accepts no liability for actions taken based on this content. By continuing to review these case materials, you acknowledge that you understand these limitations and accept full responsibility for your use of this information.
Ready to Move Forward?
Let's discuss your case and what we can do to help.
FAQ
Some questions we get, which may help you in this moment
Yes. A voluntary interview is a formal police caution and what you say can be used as evidence in court. You have a legal right to free and independent legal advice at the police station, regardless of your financial circumstances. Having a solicitor present ensures your rights are protected from the outset.
Most firms offer a range of payment options, including fixed fees for specific stages of a case or hourly rates. Depending on the seriousness of the charge and your financial position, you may also be eligible for Legal Aid to help cover some or all of your legal costs.
Less serious offences (summary offences) are typically handled in the Magistrates’ Court. More serious matters (indictable-only offences) are sent to the Crown Court to be heard by a Judge and Jury. Some cases are ‘either-way,’ meaning they can be heard in either court depending on the severity of the specific allegations.
Not necessarily. The UK courts follow strict sentencing guidelines that consider the nature of the offence and any mitigating circumstances. Possible outcomes can include fines, community orders, suspended sentences, or discharges, depending on the specifics of the case and the quality of the legal representation.
There is no fixed timeframe. An investigation can last from a few weeks to several months or even years for complex financial or historical cases. A solicitor can help manage this period of uncertainty by liaising with the police or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to get regular updates on the status of your case.