Shahadat v R.

A supply of drugs within prison by a prisoner is not automatically confined to harm category 4 merely because the supplier is not a prison employee. The category 3 routes under the drug-offences guideline are independent. They include direct sales to users, described as street dealing, regardless of the quantity supplied.

Street dealing is defined by direct sales to users, rather than by its physical location. A prisoner who sells directly to other prisoners may therefore fall within category 3. Supply within or into prison remains a highly aggravating feature and will normally justify a sentence towards the top of the applicable guideline range.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown Court to supplying heroin and possessing heroin with intent to supply. He had been seen on prison CCTV passing a package to another inmate. A search found heroin, including 13 individual wraps made from prison documentation.

The Recorder treated the appellant as performing a significant role and placed the offending in harm category 3 under the Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guideline on Drug Offences. After credit for an early guilty plea, he imposed concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment.

The appellant appealed on the basis that supply in prison by a non-employee should be placed in category 4. The central issue was whether direct drug dealing by a prisoner within the prison community could amount to street dealing for category 3.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to classify the appellant’s role as significant and the harm as category 3. The resulting concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment were not excessive.
2. Category 3 contains three independent routes: direct sales to users, supply in prison by a prison employee, and quantities falling within that category. The first two depend on the nature of the supply rather than the quantity of drugs.
3. The earlier authorities concerning small quantities smuggled into prison by non-employees did not govern this case. They involved supplies to end consumers and no drug dealing. They established that such conduct may fall in category 4, but did not exclude all non-employee prison supplies from category 3.
4. Street dealing is a term of art. It means selling directly to users and does not require a sale in a street. A prisoner who sells directly to other prisoners may therefore be a street dealer for the guideline.
5. The individual wraps, their prison-documentation packaging, and the observed sale supported the conclusion that the appellant was selling directly to users. Supply within prison was also a highly aggravating feature. Following R v Melim [2014] EWCA Crim 1915, the appropriate sentence should move towards the top of the category 3 significant-role range. The appellant was, if anything, fortunate in the Recorder’s overall assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence in [2017] EWCA Crim 822.
• Crown Court at Leicester: on 10 November 2016, following guilty pleas to supplying heroin and possessing heroin with intent to supply, imposed concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment.