Reaffirming the Limits of Parity:
Budhia v R ([2025] EWCA Crim 818) and the “Totality Adjustment” for Co-Defendants Already Serving Sentences

Introduction

Budhia v R constitutes a significant Court of Appeal ruling on sentencing disparity between co-conspirators in large-scale Class A drug supply. The appellant, Mr Budhia, and his co-accused, Mr Mahmood, jointly orchestrated a nationwide cocaine enterprise involving over 100 kg of high-purity product and millions of pounds in cash. At first instance Budhia received 13 years 6 months’ imprisonment, identical to Mahmood’s headline term. Budhia appealed, contending that parity with Mahmood was unjust because:

• Mahmood was the ringleader and was already serving long custodial sentences.
• Mahmood’s offending occurred while still in prison—an aggravating factor absent for Budhia.
• Mahmood had extensive, relevant previous convictions; Budhia was of previous good character.

The appeal thus squarely raised the question: when, if ever, should an otherwise proportionate sentence be reduced solely to create “visible daylight” between co-offenders?

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the appeal. It held that:

• The 13½-year sentence for Budhia was not “manifestly excessive” on its own merits.
• Mahmood’s seemingly lenient 18-month “add-on” resulted from the totality principle; it reflected the fact that he was already serving more than 22 years for overlapping conduct.
• Parity doctrine does not compel courts to depress an appropriate sentence merely because a co-defendant’s sentence—shaped by totality or other unique factors—appears low.
• Right-thinking members of the public, apprised of all the facts, would not believe “something had gone wrong” with the administration of justice.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• R v Fawcett (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 158 – Established the “right-thinking member of the public” test for disparity: would such a person, knowing all the circumstances, conclude an injustice has occurred?
• R v Saliuka [2014] EWCA Crim 1907 – Warned against perpetuating leniency; courts should not impose an unduly lenient sentence on one offender simply to match another’s.
• R v McGoldrick [2025] EWCA Crim 301 – Budhia/Mahmood’s co-conspirator unsuccessfully appealed his own consecutive three-year term, reinforcing the stringency applied in large-scale drug conspiracies.

The Court synthesised these authorities to reaffirm that parity works both ways: it prevents excessive disparities but also bars unjustified leniency merely for the sake of uniformity.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three interlocking steps:

1. Assess Budhia’s sentence in isolation. Using the Sentencing Council’s Drug Offences Guideline, the trial judge took a Category 1 – leading role starting point of 20 years, discounting to 18 for mitigation and to 13½ for a 25 % guilty plea. The Court of Appeal confirmed this was “entirely commensurate” with the criminality.
2. Explain Mahmood’s reduced headline. Mahmood’s overall culpability equated to 24 years; however, he was already serving 22 years 4 months for overlapping conduct. Applying the totality principle, the trial judge imposed a concurrent 13½-year sentence, later corrected to an 18-month consecutive term. The Court stressed that this special adjustment was unique to Mahmood.
3. Apply the parity test from Fawcett. Would an informed observer think Budhia’s identical sentence was unfair? The Court answered no, because the observer would understand Mahmood was effectively serving ≈24 years (22 years 4 months + 18 months). Therefore, equal headline figures masked unequal overall liabilities, and no injustice arose.

3. Impact of the Decision

The case clarifies and sharpens two sentencing doctrines:

• Parity vs. Totality. Where a co-defendant’s sentence is downward-adjusted for totality (owing to an existing custodial term), the court need not replicate that reduction for un-sentenced co-offenders.
• High Threshold for Disparity Appeals. Budhia confirms that parity is an ground of appeal, succeeding only when a sentence is otherwise excessive or the disparity is inexplicably wide. It will rarely compel reduction of an independently appropriate sentence.
• EncroChat prosecutions. The judgment signals that defendants who assume operational leadership when original ringleaders are imprisoned cannot expect sentencing discounts by comparing themselves to those ringleaders.

Future litigants will face an uphill battle arguing parity where different totality variables apply. Sentencers, conversely, gain comfort that they may calibrate consecutive or concurrent terms to respect totality without undermining proportionality toward co-defendants.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Totality Principle: A sentencing rule requiring courts to ensure that the aggregate sentence for multiple offences is proportionate to the offender’s overall criminality. When an offender is already serving time, new sentences may be made concurrent or only modestly consecutive so the combined length is fair.
• Parity/Disparity Doctrine: The idea that sentences for co-offenders should generally bear a reasonable relationship to each other. Disparity becomes a ground for appeal only if the gap is so great—or the equality so inexplicable—that the public would sense injustice.
• EncroChat Evidence: A secure phone network used by organised criminals. Material obtained after its infiltration has fuelled numerous high-level drug prosecutions. Username “handles” (e.g., honorabletonic) are digital aliases tying messages to individuals.
• Category 1 – Leading Role: Under the Drug Offences Guideline, the highest culpability bracket for supply of Class A drugs, typically involving ≥5 kg and leadership of a significant network for financial gain.

Conclusion

Budhia v R reinforces that the quest for sentencing parity cannot override the fundamental requirement that each sentence remain individually just. Where a co-defendant benefits from a totality adjustment because of substantial existing sentences, parity does not oblige the court to lower another offender’s fresh sentence. The decision thus:

• Affirms the “right-thinking public” yardstick from Fawcett as the governing test for disparity appeals.
• Clarifies that apparent leniency in one sentence, produced by totality considerations, will not taint proportionate sentences of others.
• Provides authoritative guidance for future EncroChat drug conspiracies and complex multi-sentence scenarios.

Practitioners should note the Court’s emphatic stance: proportionality first, parity second. Appeals based solely on unequal headlines—without demonstrating that the challenged sentence is itself excessive—are unlikely to succeed.