Zaman, R. v

For assisting an offender under section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967, the statutory condition is that the principal offender committed a relevant offence. It does not require that person to have been convicted. An acquittal of the alleged principal offender therefore does not preclude proof, in proceedings against the assister, that the principal offence was committed.

An unequivocal guilty plea to assisting an offender concedes that condition. In sentencing for sophisticated Class A drug importation conspiracies, quantity, persistence, planning and role remain important. Exceptional constructive conduct in custody may mitigate sentence, although its effect is limited by the gravity of the offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Wolverhampton Crown Court to conspiracies to import cocaine and heroin, and to assisting an offender. He received consecutive sentences of six and nine years for the drug conspiracies, producing a total of 15 years; the two-year sentence for assisting an offender was concurrent.

The assisting count alleged that he had helped Mahboob leave the scene and sheltered him after an alleged drug-supply conspiracy. Mahboob was later acquitted of that conspiracy. The appellant appealed against his assisting conviction on the basis that the acquittal meant Mahboob was not an offender. He also appealed against the total sentence as manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. Section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 requires proof that the alleged principal offender committed a relevant offence. It does not make that proof dependent on the principal offender’s conviction. Accordingly, an acquittal does not conclusively prevent the prosecution from establishing, in the assister’s case, that the principal offence was committed. Different admissible evidence, or further evidence discovered after the acquittal, may establish that fact.

   The appellant’s unequivocal guilty plea relieved the prosecution of the need to adduce further proof against him. The plea conceded that Mahboob had in fact committed the relevant offence, rather than merely that the appellant believed that he might have done so. Knowledge and belief were each sufficient states of mind for the assisting offence.

2. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The separate cocaine and heroin conspiracies, different contacts and sources, and the appellant’s high culpability were aggravating features. The court nevertheless considered that the offending showed less persistence than the substantial and repeated importations considered in Attorney General's Reference (Nos 117 and 118 of 2005), R v Byfield and Swaby [2007] 1 Cr App R (S) 22.

   The appellant’s unusually constructive conduct while remanded in custody had mitigating value. It could not outweigh the seriousness of sophisticated Class A drug importation, but the total sentence of 15 years was manifestly excessive after the guilty pleas.

3. The nine-year sentence for the heroin conspiracy was quashed and replaced by seven years. The six-year sentence for the cocaine conspiracy was quashed and replaced by five years. Those sentences remained consecutive, producing a total of 12 years, concurrent with the two-year sentence on the assisting count.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—the appeal against conviction was dismissed; the appeal against sentence was allowed and the total sentence was reduced to 12 years: [2010] EWCA Crim 209.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton—the appellant pleaded guilty on 29 April 2008 to two Class A drug-importation conspiracies and assisting an offender. He received consecutive sentences of six and nine years for the conspiracies, with a concurrent two-year sentence for assisting an offender.