Zarif, R. v

A renewed application for leave to appeal sentence will fail where the sentencing judge has carefully assessed the offender’s role and guideline category, the proper credit for a guilty plea, and totality across separately sentenced offending. The appellate court will not regard the resulting sentence as arguably wrong in principle or manifestly excessive merely because the overall custodial period is substantial.

The applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply heroin and, on 16 May 2017, was sentenced in the Crown Court to 61 months’ imprisonment. He had previously received a three-year sentence for separate 2014 drug offending.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal sentence, contending that the starting point was too high, that insufficient credit had been allowed for his guilty plea, and that totality had been inadequately reflected because the two sets of offending were sentenced separately. The central issue was whether the 61-month sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive when considered with the earlier sentence.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal sentence, and for a representation order, was refused.
2. The Court held that the sentencing judge had given careful consideration to the proper categorisation of the applicant’s role in the conspiracy, the discount for his guilty plea, and the sentence required overall in light of totality. Although the judge did not have full details of the earlier 2014 offending, she had totality in mind when fixing sentence.
3. The applicant’s submission that the combined practical effect of the earlier three-year sentence and the present sentence was excessive did not show any arguable error. The Court agreed in substance with the reasons of the single judge and held that the 61-month sentence was not arguably wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal sentence refused.
• Crown Court: following a guilty plea to conspiracy to supply heroin on 22 February 2017, the applicant was sentenced on 16 May 2017 to 61 months’ imprisonment.