Avazi & Ors, R. v

For sentencing purposes, the purity of opium concerns whether the consignment has been adulterated. It does not refer to the naturally variable proportion of morphine. An unadulterated consignment may therefore be treated as 100 per cent pure, although a lower morphine content may be relevant when checking whether a weight-based sentence is out of line with the equivalent effect of heroin or cocaine.

The street-value cross-check is discretionary. A financial reporting order under Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 requires an evaluative judgment about the statutory risk of further offending; it does not involve a burden or standard of proof.

Six offenders appealed sentences imposed following two connected importations of opium from Iran. The first consignment weighed 147.7 kilograms and concerned Avazi, Tahbaz, Masoumi-Ravandi and Darvishzadeh. The second weighed 158 kilograms and concerned Golizadeh and Ghanbari-Monfared.

The appellants challenged the treatment of opium as 100 per cent pure. Golizadeh and Ghanbari-Monfared also contended that their sentences were disparate when compared with the first group. Ghanbari-Monfared further challenged a financial reporting order. The central issues were the meaning of purity in sentencing for opium importation, sentence disparity, and the statutory basis for the reporting order.

1. The appeals against sentence by Avazi, Tahbaz, Masoumi-Ravandi and Darvishzadeh were dismissed. The court held that the sentencing judge had correctly treated the consignment as 100 per cent pure. On a proper reading of R v Mashaollahi [2001] 1 Cr App R 106, purity concerns adulteration of opium, not the percentage of morphine in its natural composition. There was no evidence of adulteration or contamination.

2. A lower morphine content could nevertheless be relevant when deciding whether the sentence reached by applying the weight-based guidance was significantly out of line with the equivalent heroin or cocaine quantity. The cross-check was available but was not mandatory. The consignment’s 4.5 per cent morphine content did not show that an 18-year starting point for the leading offender was excessive, and the individual sentences disclosed neither error nor impermissible disparity.

3. The five-year travel restriction order imposed on Masoumi-Ravandi was upheld. The sophisticated and planned importation, together with his continuing Iranian connections, supplied clear material for the order under Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

4. The appeals of Golizadeh and Ghanbari-Monfared were allowed because the substantial difference between their sentences and those imposed in the connected importation would not permit justice to be seen to have been done. Golizadeh’s sentence was reduced to 18 years and Ghanbari-Monfared’s to 15 years.

5. The challenge to Ghanbari-Monfared’s financial reporting order was rejected. Under section 76(2) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, the court makes an evaluative judgment whether the risk of further specified offending is sufficiently high. The available material plainly met that criterion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court dismissed the four first-group sentence appeals, allowed the sentence appeals of Golizadeh and Ghanbari-Monfared, and upheld the financial reporting order.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: Judge Campbell sentenced Avazi, Tahbaz, Masoumi-Ravandi and Darvishzadeh on 6 July 2007. Judge Barnes sentenced Golizadeh and Ghanbari-Monfared on 24 March 2007.