- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rahman, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
On 22 July 2024, in the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant pleaded guilty to possessing a Class A controlled drug (cocaine) with intent, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On 30 September 2024, His Honour Judge Dixon sentenced the Appellant to 26 months' imprisonment. The Appellant appealed the sentence on the basis that it was arguably manifestly excessive.
The offending arose when, on 16 December 2021, the Appellant was stopped and searched by police. He voluntarily disclosed that he had drugs in his possession. Officers recovered a plastic zip-sealed bag containing a foil package with 59.2 grams of cocaine at 93% purity, valued between £2,400 and £4,700. Additionally, a self-sealed bag with just under 4 grams of cocaine at 90% purity and several self-seal bags were found. Following arrest, a search of the Appellant's family home recovered a small quantity of cocaine, self-seal bags, and multiple mobile phones including "burner phones." One phone contained drug-related messages and a price list indicating availability of high purity cocaine. The Appellant provided a 'no comment' interview.
The Appellant pleaded guilty on an agreed Basis of Plea accepted by the Crown, which stated that the Appellant was addicted to cocaine, involved with users of crack and heroin, and was asked by his drug dealer to help acquire customers in exchange for drugs to feed his addiction. He admitted holding the drugs recovered from his address and acknowledged some financial benefit limited to receiving drugs he would otherwise have to pay for.
The Appellant had previous good character and presented letters of remorse and positive character references. A pre-sentence report noted the Appellant’s remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and significant mental health struggles linked to personal tragedies and relationship breakdown. The report recommended a community-based disposal with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, highlighting the detrimental impact a custodial sentence could have on his mental health. The Appellant had not used cocaine for some time and was receiving treatment for anxiety and depression.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence of 26 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offending and assessing the Appellant’s role within the drug dealing hierarchy.
- Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider personal mitigation, including mental health and the pre-sentence report’s recommendations.
- Whether the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the current state of the prison population and rehabilitative prospects, as per the principles in R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232.
- Whether the sentencing judge failed to consider the Appellant’s conduct while on bail and lack of further offending over 28 months.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 | Consideration of current prison conditions and rehabilitative prospects in sentencing. | The court noted the sentencing judge failed to consider the principles from this case, which were relevant given the Appellant’s personal circumstances, delay, and lack of reoffending. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court identified multiple flaws in the sentencing remarks. The sentencing judge’s characterisation of the offending was inconsistent with the agreed Basis of Plea, which indicated a lesser role and limited financial benefit. The sentencing remarks inadequately addressed the applicable Drug Guidelines, failing to properly place the offending within Category 3 street dealing with a lesser role. The quantity of drugs was typical for street dealing and did not justify an increase to the top of the sentencing range.
The sentencing remarks also omitted consideration of significant personal mitigation, including the Appellant’s mental health difficulties, remorse, and the pre-sentence report’s recommendation for a community-based disposal. The judge made a broad generalisation that all Class A drug dealers must expect imprisonment, without tailoring this to the Appellant’s circumstances. There was no engagement with the Imposition Guideline or factors supporting suspension.
Further, the judge failed to consider the principles from R v Ali, which address the current state of prisons and the importance of rehabilitation, particularly relevant given the Appellant’s over 28 months on bail without further offending. The court concluded that these cumulative errors rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.
On reconsideration, the court found the offending to be Category 3 with a lesser role, warranting a starting point of 36 months’ custody. With no aggravating factors and strong personal mitigation, the sentence was reduced to the bottom of the range (24 months), then further reduced by 25% for the guilty plea, resulting in 18 months’ imprisonment. Taking into account the Imposition Guidelines, the pre-sentence report’s recommendation, current prison conditions, lack of reoffending, and prospects for rehabilitation, the court deemed it appropriate to suspend the sentence for 24 months with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement of 20 days and additional conditions.
Holding and Implications
The court allowed the appeal and quashed the original sentence. It substituted a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment suspended for 24 months, effective immediately, subject to conditions including no further offending, regular contact with a supervising officer, and completion of a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement.
This decision directly affects the Appellant by replacing immediate custody with a suspended sentence and community rehabilitation. No new precedent was established; rather, the court applied existing sentencing principles more appropriately to the facts and personal circumstances of the case.
Alert