Ahmed v R.

For sentencing possession of cannabis with intent to supply, the quantity, commercial purpose and value of the drug are material. A higher-value form of cannabis may be relevant even though it is subject to no separate statutory regime.

Magistrates’ guidelines for small-scale retail supply do not govern a substantial commercial supply case. A Sentencing Advisory Panel report has no legal force unless it has been adopted by the Sentencing Guidelines Council or Sentencing Council.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment imposed at Snarebrook Crown Court following his conviction, after trial, for possessing 742 grams of sinsemilla cannabis with intent to supply.

The drugs had been taken to a hotel room apparently arranged for their sale. The sentencing judge found that the applicant and his two co-defendants were equally involved in a profit-motivated enterprise.

The application challenged that assessment, the relevance of sentencing guidance and a Sentencing Advisory Panel report, the treatment of the cannabis as an aggravating feature, the approach in Donovan [2005] 1 Cr App R (S) 16, and the weight given to youth and good character.

1. The application for leave to appeal sentence was refused. An 18-month sentence after trial was proper for proposed commercial supply of three quarters of a kilogram of sinsemilla cannabis.

2. The recorder was entitled, having heard the five-day trial, to find that the three defendants were equally involved. The applicant’s use of his driving licence to assist the hotel booking, his presence in the room and his false accounts on arrest supported that conclusion.

3. The magistrates’ guideline for small-scale retail supply to a consumer was inapplicable. The quantity was not small and the case was unsuitable for trial in the magistrates’ court. A Sentencing Advisory Panel report could not itself govern sentence because it had no legal force unless adopted by the Sentencing Guidelines Council or the Sentencing Council.

4. Although sinsemilla cannabis has no separate statutory regime, its nature was relevant. It had a higher value than traditional imported herbal cannabis or cannabis resin, and the offence was committed for profit. Donovan was distinguishable because the sentencing judge there had found that any actual supply would have been very limited.

5. The applicant’s age and previous good character did not make it unfair to sentence all three defendants on the same basis. He had not admitted his conduct and continued to advance the account rejected by the jury.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the applicant leave to appeal against sentence in Ahmed v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 77.

• Snarebrook Crown Court: following a trial, imposed 18 months’ imprisonment for possession of cannabis with intent to supply.