R v Conrad Byrd

R v Conrad Byrd

The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive as insufficient allowance was made for significant mitigation; the correct sentence after trial should have been 16 years, reduced by 25% for the guilty plea, resulting in 12 years imprisonment.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Appellant: Conrad Byrd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Drug Offences, Mitigation, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Sentencing Drug Offences Mitigation Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

Conrad Byrd

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the sentence imposed manifestly excessive given the mitigation and personal circumstances of the appellant?
  2. 2 What is the appropriate allowance for mitigation in sentencing for possession of cocaine with intent to supply?

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive as insufficient allowance was made for significant mitigation; the correct sentence after trial should have been 16 years, reduced by 25% for the guilty plea, resulting in 12 years imprisonment.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence of 12 years 9 months quashed
  • Substituted sentence of 12 years imprisonment