Budhia v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

On 12 March 2024, in the Crown Court at Leeds, the Appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and conspiracy to transfer criminal property. On 30 October 2024, the Appellant was sentenced by HHJ Rachim Singh to 13 years and 6 months' imprisonment for the drug conspiracy offence, with no separate penalty for the money laundering offence. The Appellant now appeals this sentence with the leave of the Single Judge.

The Appellant’s co-accused included two others, who also pleaded guilty and were sentenced for their roles in the conspiracy. One co-accused was already serving a lengthy prison sentence related to part of the conspiracy and received an additional consecutive sentence. Another co-accused appealed his sentence but the appeal was dismissed.

The conspiracy spanned from March to November 2020. One co-accused was imprisoned during the conspiracy period but continued to direct operations from custody. The Appellant took over operational activities outside prison, running a wholesale drug supply business from his home in Bradford. Communications recovered from the Appellant’s encrypted phone revealed extensive involvement in large-scale drug supply and money laundering activities, including discussions about drug press plates, transportation methods during Covid lockdown, and cash transactions exceeding £1 million.

The conspiracy involved over 100 kilograms of cocaine distributed across multiple cities. The Appellant maintained a close relationship with the imprisoned co-accused and was arrested in November 2023.

At sentencing, the Judge treated the Appellant as a leading figure in the conspiracy, comparable to the imprisoned co-accused, and applied a starting point of 20 years’ imprisonment, reduced to 18 years for mitigation and good character, and further reduced by 25% for an early guilty plea, resulting in the 13 years and 6 months’ sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 13 years and 6 months imposed on the Appellant was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether there was an unjustifiable disparity between the sentence imposed on the Appellant and that imposed on the co-accused who was already serving a sentence.
3. The proper application of the principle of parity in sentencing among co-defendants involved in the same conspiracy.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive due to disparity with the co-accused’s sentence.
• The co-accused headed and orchestrated the conspiracy, whereas the Appellant was a trusted lieutenant; this difference in role should have resulted in a lesser sentence for the Appellant.
• The co-accused was imprisoned during the conspiracy, an aggravating factor not applicable to the Appellant.
• The co-accused had numerous relevant previous convictions, whereas the Appellant had no previous convictions and was of good character.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v McGoldrick [2025] EWCA Crim 301	Dismissal of appeal against sentence for co-accused	Confirmed the appropriateness of the co-accused’s sentence and context of the conspiracy
R v Fawcett (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 158	Test for disparity in sentencing: whether right-thinking members of the public would consider the sentence unjust	Guided the Court’s assessment of whether disparity justified interference with the Appellant’s sentence
R v Saliuka [2014] EWCA Crim 1907	Principle that reducing a sentence to achieve parity with an unduly lenient sentence is improper	Supported the Court’s view that an unduly lenient sentence for one defendant does not justify reducing a proper sentence for another

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the issue of disparity between the Appellant’s sentence and that of the co-accused who was already serving a substantial custodial sentence. It noted that the co-accused’s prior sentence and ongoing imprisonment during the conspiracy were significant factors justifying differences in sentencing approaches and totality considerations.

The Court emphasized that the Appellant’s sentence was not manifestly excessive when considered in isolation. The scale and commercial nature of the conspiracy, the Appellant’s leading role, and the substantial quantities of drugs involved warranted a high starting point and a significant custodial term.

The Court rejected the argument that the Appellant’s role as a trusted lieutenant rather than the head of the conspiracy entitled him to a materially lower sentence, finding no reasonable basis to distinguish their culpability to that extent. Both were integral leaders in the conspiracy.

The Court further held that the Appellant’s good character and lack of previous convictions were appropriately taken into account in mitigation, and that the disparity argument faced a high threshold which was not met. It also stressed that parity considerations do not justify reducing a proper sentence simply because another defendant’s sentence might appear lenient.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Appellant’s sentence was reasonable and that no interference was warranted.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.

The Court upheld the sentence of 13 years and 6 months’ imprisonment imposed on the Appellant. The decision confirms that sentencing courts may impose comparable sentences on co-defendants with closely aligned roles in a conspiracy, even where one co-defendant is serving a prior custodial sentence. The ruling underscores the high threshold for successful appeals based on alleged sentencing disparity and affirms that parity does not require equal sentences where material differences exist. No new precedent was established beyond the application of established principles of parity and totality in sentencing.