R v Hamzah Ali Hameed

The availability of a suspended sentence for a custodial term of two years does not make suspension appropriate. For serious street-level supply of Class A drugs, immediate custody may be required where it is the only means of achieving appropriate punishment. Strong personal mitigation, good character, possible grooming and an unconfirmed serious medical condition may properly reduce the length of sentence, but need not justify suspension. A sentencing judge’s immaterial misdescription of the source of a medical condition will not render the sentence wrong where the condition and its potential significance were clearly taken into account.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to possession of crack cocaine and heroin with intent to supply. He was committed to the Crown Court at Cambridge for sentence and received two years’ immediate imprisonment after credit for his guilty pleas.

He had no previous convictions. The sentencing judge treated his role as significant under the relevant drug-offences guideline, but gave substantial mitigation for his troubled background, possible grooming, and concern that he might have inherited Huntingdon’s disease.

On appeal, the appellant sought a suspended sentence. He relied on the potential medical diagnosis, personal mitigation, good character and guidance concerning suspended sentences in the context of prison overcrowding.

1. Appeal dismissed. The two-year sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The Recorder was entitled to treat the appellant as having a significant role in the supply of Class A drugs. He carried a substantial number of wraps, had drugs-related phones, cash, a debt list and contaminated scales. Starting from four and a half years’ custody, the Recorder reduced the sentence to three years for mitigation and then applied full credit for the guilty pleas.

3. The court held that the Recorder had plainly taken account of the appellant’s difficult history, possible grooming, psychological difficulties and concern about Huntingdon’s disease. Although the Recorder had inaccurately linked the neurological condition to the Glasgow assault, he had clearly considered the potential diagnosis. It afforded no further mitigation beyond that already allowed.

4. The court accepted that good character and strong personal mitigation were factors favouring suspension. However, the serious street supply of crack cocaine and heroin required immediate custody to achieve appropriate punishment. The guidance in R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232, concerning suspended sentences in substitution for short custodial sentences amid prison overcrowding, did not assist on these facts.

5. The court expressed the expectation that the prison authorities would provide appropriate medical attention once given the available medical material.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2023] EWCA Crim 1611, dismissed the appeal against sentence.

• Crown Court at Cambridge — on 23 August 2023, sentenced the appellant to two years’ immediate imprisonment for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply.