Aram Sheibani v R

Applications for leave to appeal out of time should be refused where delay is unexplained and the proposed grounds are not reasonably arguable. A single overarching conspiracy to supply different Class A drugs at wholesale level may be charged with unnamed co-conspirators if its scope is sufficiently particularised and supported by evidence. Jury directions are assessed in context, so omission of the word single is not necessarily fatal. Under section 1A(4) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, Attorney General consent is unnecessary where the alleged offence is triable in England and Wales. A sentence above guideline ranges may be justified in a truly exceptional, large-scale drug conspiracy where the sentencing judge explains the reasons and applies totality.

Following a retrial at the Crown Court at Manchester, the appellant was convicted of 20 offences, including a wholesale Class A drug conspiracy, fraud and dishonesty offences, money laundering, perverting the course of justice and offences under section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. He received a total sentence of 37 years, including 34 years for the conspiracy.

He sought extensions of time, amendments and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The proposed conviction grounds concerned the sufficiency and particularity of the conspiracy evidence, jury directions, statutory consent and a no-comment interview. The sentence grounds challenged the exceptional sentence, totality and the certainty of the basis for sentence.

1. All applications were refused. The proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable, and no satisfactory explanation had been given for the substantial delays. Even if time had been extended, leave to appeal would have been refused.

2. The prosecution case identified a single, overarching conspiracy to supply cocaine and MDMA at wholesale level between 2010 and 2019, with unnamed co-conspirators. It was not wrong in principle to charge that allegation. The evidence, taken at its highest, was capable of supporting it and satisfied the test in R v Galbraith [1981] 1 W.L.R 1039. A submission of no case was therefore bound to fail.

   The judge did not need to use the word single or one in the written direction. The prosecution had consistently advanced one conspiracy, its parameters were sufficiently clear, and the trial materials showed that counsel and the jury understood the allegation.

3. Section 1A(4) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 requires the third statutory condition for the provision to apply. That condition was not met because the alleged offence was triable in England and Wales, most of the conduct having occurred within the jurisdiction. Attorney General consent under section 4(5) was therefore unnecessary. The common law and international comity also supported domestic jurisdiction where the conspiracy was formed and operated in England and Wales. R v Shabbir [2010] EWCA Crim 970 and R v Seymour [2008] 1 AC 713 concerned exclusively extraterritorial supplies and did not assist.

4. A standard section 34 direction under the Crime Justice and Public Order Act 1994 did not render the conviction unsafe. The appellant gave evidence and could have provided his account at trial; the failure to mention matters in interview was an insignificant part of the prosecution case, was not relied upon in closing, and was not mentioned in the judge’s evidential summary.

5. The 37-year sentence was justified. The evidence supported findings that the appellant operated at the pinnacle of a very large, profitable, nine-year conspiracy. This was a truly exceptional case warranting a sentence above the guideline range and the usual 30-year ceiling, with reasons properly explained. The judge was entitled to reflect separate fraud and dishonesty offences as aggravating features in the lead count while imposing concurrent sentences, and to impose consecutive sentences for the two section 49 offences. Totality had been properly considered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On the applications arising from the retrial convictions and sentence, the court refused extensions of time, amendments and leave to appeal. The decision is reported at [2023] EWCA Crim 1505.
• Crown Court at Manchester (Crown Square) — Following retrial convictions on 9 June 2021, the appellant was sentenced on 10 June 2021 to a total of 37 years’ imprisonment.