R v Adil Riaz

In sentencing for multiple grave and distinct offences, the court must apply totality by assessing the overall term against the appropriate notional sentences for each course of criminality. A consecutive sentence may be justified where weapons offending adds criminality beyond the drug enterprise with which it is closely connected.

On an appeal against sentence, Criminal Appeal Act 1968 section 11(3) prevents the appellate court from correcting an omission or error if the correction would cause the offender to be dealt with more severely. The court may, however, correct the record or make an omitted order where doing so has no such effect.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Bristol Crown Court to conspiracies to supply large quantities of cocaine and to deal with criminal property, firearm and weapons offences, robbery, dangerous driving, and driving whilst disqualified. He received concurrent and consecutive sentences producing a total of 24 years’ imprisonment, together with a driving disqualification.

He renewed, after refusal by a single judge, his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that treating the prohibited-weapons transfer as category 1 harm because of its connection with drug trafficking, and making its sentence consecutive, involved double counting and produced a sentence contrary to totality.

The court also considered discrepancies between the sentencing remarks and the trial record sheet, including the driving orders.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The overall sentence of 24 years was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The drugs conspiracy involved 284 kilograms of cocaine, far exceeding the five-kilogram indication for category 1 harm. Its scale, sophistication and use of Encrochat justified a notional sentence of 16 years before credit for guilty pleas.

3. The transfer of the prohibited weapon properly fell within category 1 harm under the relevant guideline. Its close connection with large-scale and sophisticated drug trafficking established that classification. The weapons offences also involved additional criminality, which justified consecutive sentences.

4. Totality was adequately reflected because the notional 14-year starting point for the weapons-transfer offence, and by analogy the explosive-substance offence, had been reduced to just over 10 years and eight months before plea credit. The aggregate did not therefore exceed the proper overall sentence.

5. Under section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court could impose no separate penalty for driving without insurance and amend the trial record sheet, since that did not make the applicant more severely dealt with. It could not add the omitted extended-retest requirement or correct the driving disqualification to 15 years and four months, because either course would do so. The record sheet was amended to reflect that the two third-indictment sentences were concurrent with each other but consecutive to the other sentences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and made limited corrective orders concerning the trial record sheet.
• Bristol Crown Court On 1 November 2022, imposed an aggregate sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas on three indictments.