Ali & Ors, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 22 January 2024 the Crown Court sentenced three appellants and fifteen others for multiple conspiracies to supply drugs arising from a large, organised operation operating in The City between February 2019 and February 2022. The court found that Conspiracy A involved sustained street supply of class A drugs over about four years (the judge assessed at least 31.2 kg of class A drugs and over 40 kg of cannabis). Two of the appellants were additionally convicted of a separate wholesale conspiracy (Conspiracy B) supplying class A drugs (the judge assessed 27 kg over a three-month period). One appellant was also convicted of a separate wholesale class B supply line (Conspiracy C) involving around 40 kg of cannabis. Sentences imposed included lengthy determinate custodial terms (final totals: Appellant A — 22 years; Appellant B — 19 years 3 months; Appellant C — 16 years). Each appellant appealed against sentence with leave of the full court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge's starting point of 22 years for a leading role in Conspiracy A was excessive.
2. Whether the judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences for Conspiracy B on top of Conspiracy A and whether the totality principle was properly applied.
3. Whether additional credit for early plea (including arguments based on being first to break ranks) should have been given beyond the credit allowed under the guideline.
4. Whether there was unjustifiable disparity or objectionable parity in the sentences between co-offenders.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• Starting point too high: 22 years could not be justified because quantities and features did not reach the "very substantial" importation cases often meriting 20+ years; comparisons were drawn with R v Sarasli & Selfo, R v Wraight and Bannister, R v Welsh and R v Jhurry.
• Absence of features such as encrypted devices, firearms or exploitation undermined a 22-year starting point.
• Consecutive sentences were improper or insufficiently tempered by totality because the wholesale offending overlapped in type and time with Conspiracy A.
• Claim for extra credit for plea (including being first to break ranks) relying on R v Sanghera.
• Insufficient allowance for delay and personal mitigation (family impact, mental health, deprived upbringing, low intelligence and vulnerability).
• Alleged unjustifiable disparity and parity between sentences of co-offenders with broadly similar roles.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The judge properly evaluated seriousness: scale, organisation, duration, number of lines and quantity of drugs supported a 20–30 year starting-point for leading roles.
• The wholesale conspiracy involved very large quantities and legitimately attracted a substantial separate sentence.
• Consecutive sentences were permissible where overall criminality would not be sufficiently reflected by concurrent terms; the judge properly applied totality.
• Disparities between co-offenders were explained by differences in roles, previous convictions and additional offending; there was no unjustifiable disparity.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the Sentencing Council guidelines for supply of drugs but recognised that Conspiracy A and Conspiracy B plainly fell well outside the guideline categories, requiring an evaluative exercise. It adopted principles summarised in R v Hizam (drawing on Cuni, Greenfield and Wraight and Bannister): for very serious commercial operations judges must weigh quantity (as best determinable), role in the supply chain, geographical scope, duration, number of drugs/lines and participation in separate conspiracies; there will be inevitable "bunching" in the 20–30 year range; comparisons with other cases are of limited assistance.

The court concluded Conspiracy A was sophisticated, long‑running and commercial, with quantities substantially above category 1A and operating around the clock; the judge was therefore entitled to move outside the guideline and adopt a 22‑year starting point for leading roles. For Conspiracy B the judge was entitled to calibrate from the category 1A range and identify an 18‑year starting point for a leading role given 27 kg over three months. The court upheld the judge's exercise in applying consecutive sentences where the overall criminality would not be reflected by concurrency, while noting the judge properly applied the totality principle by reducing the consecutive element.

On plea credit, the court rejected submissions for extra discount beyond guideline maxima (citing Sanghera and subsequent authorities) and confirmed the judge's allowance of 25% (not the full one‑third) for pleas to Conspiracy A and one‑third for other pleas was appropriate given timing. On delay and mitigation the court accepted some mitigation (family, health, vulnerability) but held these carried limited weight against very serious offending. On disparity the court analysed individual differences in role, prior convictions and additional offending and concluded no unjustifiable disparity.

Holding and Implications

APPEALS DISMISSED

Holding: The Court of Appeal dismissed each of the three appeals against sentence, upholding the judge's starting points, the imposition of consecutive sentences (as tempered by reductions for totality), and the assessment of plea credit and mitigation.

Implications: The decision affirms the established evaluative approach to very serious commercial drug supply that falls outside guideline categories (weighing quantity, role, duration, sophistication and participation in multiple conspiracies). The court emphasised existing principles rather than setting new precedent and suggested any further refinement of guidance would be for the Sentencing Council. The direct effect is that the sentences imposed by the trial judge remain in force for the appellants.