Mugshot of Kieran Rainford

Drug dealer ‘Mikey’ jailed for five and a half years

A man involved in a drugs supply operation between Surrey and the Isle of Wight has been jailed for more than five years.

Officers from Hampshire Constabulary investigated 38-year-old Kieran Rainford’s involvement in the supply of heroin and cocaine from 19th November 2019 up to 15th February 2021, when Rainford was arrested in the Fareham area.

Charged with supply of Class A drugs
Shortly after his arrest, he was charged with two counts of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs.

Rainford, of Cressall Close in Leatherhead, Surrey, initially denied the offences, but admitted these at Southampton Crown Court on Wednesday 24th November 2021.

‘Marketing messages’ sent to IW drug users
Phone data obtained by the police investigation revealed Rainford was in charge of five phones which he used to send out marketing messages to drug users on the Island, in addition to his own personal phone.

Following a lengthy investigation and careful analysis of phone data, officers were able to link Rainford to the ‘Mikey’ County Lines drug network.

Jailed for five and a half years
Appearing at Newport Crown Court today (14th January 2022), Recorder Paul Garlick QC jailed Rainford for five and a half years.

Rainford was also ordered to pay a £181 victim surcharge.

Harnett:
Detective Constable Rob Harnett, who investigated the case, said,

“Investigations of this nature are always lengthy and complex, but we were able to identify that drug users on the Isle of Wight were receiving regular contact from a dealer known only as ‘Mikey’.

“The evidence we obtained during the course of our investigation linked Rainford to the Mikey line, and showed he would use as many as five different mobile phone sim cards to try and stay under the radar.

“I am pleased this case has now concluded and Rainford is behind bars for these crimes.”

Tackling County Lines drug supply and the associated harm is a priority for us. We encourage anyone who has information about the supply of drugs in their area to report this to police so we can develop a strong intelligence picture and take action.

Get in touch
You can call us on 101, or submit information via our website: https://www.hampshire.police.uk/ro/report/ocr/af/how-to-report-a-crime/

Alternatively, you can make a report 100per cent anonymously to the independent charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

Spotting the signs
Some common signs of drug dealing and County Lines activity to look out for include:

  • An increase in visitors/cars to a house or flat
  • Regularly changing residents
  • When you see the occupant, they may appear anxious or distracted
  • Substance misuse or drugs paraphernalia in the vicinity of a property
  • Changes in young people, for example having new unaffordable things, going missing or unexplained injuries.

News shared by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary, in their own words. Ed

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
0 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jackie
14, October 2010 4:33 pm

Call in Watchdog….those guys on the motorbike would love this

kook
14, October 2010 4:40 pm

The look on my face reading this was something along the lines of,
“um…wut? O.o”

intentionally blank
14, October 2010 5:25 pm

I would have obstructed him and called the police again to report someone trespassing on my land. It should be clearly laid out in the freehold who owns what land. I would imagine the majority of freeholders up there have contacted their lawyer today.

paul bailey
14, October 2010 6:12 pm

The pillars that the notices are attached to, do not fall on the freehold land claimed by the freeholder. Therefore, are effectively illegally placed on someone elses property. there is also no definitive signage to cover what should be a specific area and not a general one. Whites have allegedly been contracted to provide a ticketing, clamping and tow away service by the ‘freeholder’ and only outside… Read more »

intentionally blank
Reply to  paul bailey
14, October 2010 7:12 pm

the story says that he was trying to put signs down the street, outside every property, and that number 8 is claiming that their freehold covers all parking in the road. Clearly someone has their wires crossed somewhere. Either the signs cover only designated parking for number 8, or they cover the entire road. I would imagine only a lawyer can decide what the various freeholds cover,… Read more »

rudeantics
14, October 2010 6:14 pm

To be fair the island police are probably traumatised at present due to the plastic hand grenade incident

Mike
Reply to  rudeantics
14, October 2010 7:17 pm

Typical police.Ignore rights of the individual in favour of the corparate. Contact the national press,they will love this.

Steephill Jack
14, October 2010 8:47 pm

£150 a day is ambitious when compared with £500 a year for a permit from the County Council, but maybe we never had it so good…

Josh
15, October 2010 12:16 am

Typical Isle of Wight police attitude by the sounds of it! Have had dealings with them in the past (as a victim!) and they seem to love protecting the crims!

Probably getting a slice of the £150.00 in their back pocket!

Noraa
15, October 2010 8:26 am

i bet no.8 is a very popular man.

Carol Jones
Reply to  Noraa
15, October 2010 9:44 am

I would just like to make it clear as one of the residents of number 8 that the man responsible for hiring the clamping firm does not reside in our building. In fact, we are not really sure where he lives but he indicates he is abroad. We have suffered many issues due to the “freeholder” and he continues to blight our lives. This is just his… Read more »

intentionally blank
Reply to  Carol Jones
15, October 2010 9:58 am

I dont know too much about freeholds, but I know on my leasehold there is a designated parking space, and I have used that fact to prevent a neighbour allowing visitors to park in my space. Fortunately lawyers were not involved, and it was a perfectly friendly discussion. I would suggest the answer to the parking certainly lies with the other freeholders in the road. I would… Read more »

No.5
Reply to  intentionally blank
15, October 2010 10:00 am

This all assumes that the freeholder is a reasonable person

intentionally blank
Reply to  No.5
15, October 2010 10:11 am

not at all. but its worth checking any leaseholds or rental agreements. If the freeholder was reasonable, they wouldnt have introduced a parking charge. Check any paperwork first, then get a lawyer involved to ensure its all done properly. With a lawyer involved it doesnt matter how reasonable or not the freeholder is. The legalities should be reasonably clear cut.

Carol Jones
15, October 2010 10:50 am

In my opinion, the freeholder is not a reasonable person. The owners of the flats in number 8 always had their parking rights until this individual assumed he owned the parking bays. I am sure others will be able to support me when I say that the basement flat which he used to own came with ONE allocated space. When he sold it recently, he sold it… Read more »

Carol Jones
Reply to  Carol Jones
15, October 2010 10:54 am

By the way, the owners do have clear instruction on their deeds etc with regards to parking – I have one in my possession. The police are aware of this (and the fact that other residents in the street have their evidence,) but chose to support the clampers by saying it was a civil matter………

romeantique
15, October 2010 10:54 am

If that’s a picture of the police who attended he looks like a community support officer to me, could this situation be a result of policing on the cheap?

Carol Jones
Reply to  romeantique
15, October 2010 10:56 am

The two policemen sent to the scene were both community support officers. A request by my partner to bring someone senior along was ignored

intentionally blank
Reply to  Carol Jones
15, October 2010 5:18 pm

I think theyre probably right in saying that its a civil matter, however surely that means they cannot prevent you when you prevent the clampers tresspassing on your land? I think the answer may lay with your neighbours rather than the leasholders of No.8, ie the flat owners. If the freeholder is claiming he owns all parking in the road, he is either correct or incorrect. A… Read more »

romeantique
15, October 2010 11:24 am

Heres an interesting little tale concerning a firm of wheel campers called Whites Car Park Solutions, I wonder if it could be the same outfit? Its concerning a restaurant owner who warned customers to avoid a private car park next door because of the clamping firm, so the clamper’s then took legal action against him for “loss of earnings” He is quoted as saying “The way the… Read more »

romeantique
15, October 2010 12:14 pm

Heres another one which also mentions charging motorists a £50 top-up fine if they think they are being subjected to “abusive or violent” behaviour

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/3967835.MPs_urged_to_investigate____over_the_top____car_clamp_firm____/