Pirani, R. v

When fixing sentence under the Drug Offences Definitive Guidelines, a sentence at the top of a higher category range requires aggravating features sufficient to justify it. A significant but non-organisational role, coupled with good character, addiction and no evidence of financial benefit or high living, did not justify that increase.

Delay in commencing proceedings does not require a sentencing reduction unless it was excessive in the circumstances. The assessment must take account of the scale and complexity of the investigation and of delay attributable to the offender. A consecutive sentence may properly be imposed for a further serious drug conspiracy committed while the offender is serving imprisonment for an earlier such conspiracy, provided that totality is respected.

At Isleworth Crown Court, Imtiaz Pirani was convicted of conspiracy to supply cocaine and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. Harvey O’Neill pleaded guilty to the same conspiracy and received 10 years and six months’ imprisonment, consecutive to an existing eight-year sentence for an earlier cocaine conspiracy.

The conspiracy involved importing, storing, wholesaling and retailing cocaine. Pirani’s role was principally to communicate information to O’Neill, who was in prison. O’Neill played a leading role in the new conspiracy while serving his earlier sentence.

Pirani appealed against sentence. O’Neill renewed his application for permission to appeal, relying on delay in commencing proceedings and totality.

1. Pirani’s appeal was allowed. The sentencing judge had accepted that Pirani did not have a directional or organisational role and that he fell on the border between categories 1 and 2 of the Drug Offences Definitive Guidelines. Nevertheless, the judge imposed a sentence at the top of the category 1 range.

   That elevation was not justified by aggravating features. Pirani had previous good character, was a cocaine addict, had family responsibilities, and there was no evidence of high living or financial benefit from the conspiracy. His role was significant, but it did not justify treating him equivalently to an organiser who had received a 12-year sentence before credit for a guilty plea. The court quashed the 12-year term and substituted nine years’ imprisonment.

2. O’Neill’s renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. The delay in bringing proceedings was not excessive when viewed against the extensive investigation, the number of defendants and O’Neill’s own decisions to give no comment and initially advance a disputed basis of plea. No separate sentencing allowance for delay was required. In any event, the 25 per cent credit for the late guilty plea amply reflected the matter.

3. A consecutive sentence was correct in principle. O’Neill had joined a further wide-ranging cocaine conspiracy while serving an eight-year sentence for an earlier cocaine conspiracy. That was a grave aggravating feature. The judge had properly addressed totality, and the resulting term of 10 years and six months was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Pirani’s sentence appeal was allowed and his sentence was reduced from 12 years to nine years. O’Neill’s renewed application for permission to appeal against his consecutive sentence of 10 years and six months was refused: [2015] EWCA Crim 690.

• Isleworth Crown Court: Pirani was convicted on 29 April 2014 and sentenced on 2 May 2014. O’Neill pleaded guilty on 26 February 2014 and was sentenced to 10 years and six months’ imprisonment, consecutive to his existing sentence.