Nazari, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 25 September 2025 the Appellant was convicted after trial at The Court at The City of three counts of conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of class A drugs (cocaine, heroin and MDMA). On the same date the trial judge, Judge Fowler, sentenced the Appellant for those three offences and for a further count of conspiracy to fraudulently evade the prohibition on the importation of a class B drug (ketamine) to which the Appellant had pleaded guilty earlier. The sentences were 14 years' imprisonment on each class A conspiracy (concurrent) and seven years' imprisonment on the class B matter (concurrent).

On 14 September 2023 a British-registered Nissan was stopped at an inbound tourist zone in The City. The driver (a co-accused who later pleaded guilty) had a sophisticated concealed compartment in the boot containing large quantities of drugs: 6 kg cocaine, 3 kg heroin, 41 kg MDMA and 11 kg ketamine. Interception of the driver's phone produced messages with a contact saved as "AK"; the messages related to transfer of vehicle ownership, ferry bookings and arrangements in The City for collection of the drugs. There was no dispute that the Appellant was the person using the "AK" contact. Telephone records showed the Appellant contacting persons in The City who had arranged placement of the drugs and directing the driver where to park. Another co-accused had been the registered keeper of the Nissan before transfer to the driver and had travelled to Europe in the car on three occasions prior to the intercepted trip. Both the Appellant and that co-accused were arrested on 22 January 2025 and gave "no comment" interviews. At trial the jury found the Appellant was aware class A as well as class B drugs were being imported.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge was wrong to characterise the Appellant's role in the conspiracies as a leading role rather than a significant (or lesser) role for sentencing purposes.
2. Whether the failure to give a greater reduction for personal mitigation (principally the impact of imprisonment on the Appellant's four young children) rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.
3. Whether, given the judge's sentencing approach and the quantities involved, the overall sentence was excessive or otherwise wrong in principle.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant (through Attorney Bald) argued his role was essentially operational/logistical (sourcing drivers, facilitating travel, arranging collection) and should have been categorised as a significant role rather than a leading role.
• It was submitted the judge conflated the large quantity of drugs with leadership and therefore mis-categorised the Appellant's role; there was no evidence he directed or organised large-scale buying or selling.
• Attorney Bald also argued the judge placed undue weight on supposed financial advantage despite evidence of indebtedness, and sought a greater reduction in the overall tariff due to the impact on the Appellant's four young children (a plea for clemency).

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the trial judge's findings and sentencing exercise without ordering a pre-sentence report. It accepted the judge was best placed to evaluate the Appellant's role after hearing evidence. The judge had identified features pointing to a leading role (organising and buying on a commercial scale; expectation of substantial financial advantage; ability to offer rewards to recruits and supply an adapted car; influence over those below him; dealing with drugs on the last trip worth a large sum) while also recognising elements of a significant role and a hierarchy above the Appellant.

The judge applied the sentencing guidelines: for a single class A category 1 offence the indicative quantity is 5 kg and the starting point for a leading role is 14 years (12–16 range) whereas a significant role starts at 10 years (9–12 range). The court noted the total class A quantity on the intercepted trip amounted to 50 kg (ten times the indicative amount) and the ketamine quantity was twice its indicative amount. The judge observed that very large quantities can justify sentences over 20 years but that such sentences should be reserved for those clearly in a leading role.

The judge selected count 3 (MDMA, the largest quantity) as the lead offence, treated other counts as aggravating/reflecting totality, and imposed concurrent sentences of 14 years on the class A conspiracies, with appropriate credit for the plea on the ketamine count. The sentencing remarks recorded personal mitigation (first custody, harsh regime including lockdown, single prior minor conviction, family and character references) but the judge gave limited weight to the impact on the Appellant's children, noting the seriousness and scale of the offending and that the Appellant was not the sole carer.

The appellate court concluded the judge was entitled to find elements of both leading and significant roles, and that a lengthy sentence was inevitable given multiple conspiracies, quantities well in excess of guideline indicatives, and prior trips. Even if the judge had started from the significant-role starting point, an overall tariff of 14 years for the four conspiracies would have been open to the court.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The appellate court dismissed the Appellant's challenge to sentence and held the sentences imposed by Judge Fowler were not wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant's concurrent 14-year sentences on the class A conspiracies and the concurrent seven-year sentence on the class B conspiracy stand. The court did not establish a new precedent; the decision upholds the trial judge's application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts and gives limited weight to family mitigation in the context of large-scale drug importation offending.