R v Fiesal Hizam & Anor

For large-scale commercial drug conspiracies materially above guideline categories, sentencing is an evaluative, multifactorial exercise. Quantity remains important, but the judge must also assess role, position in the supply chain, geographical scope, duration, number of drugs and number of conspiracies. Sentences in the 20-to-30-year range inevitably show some bunching, and mitigation carries less weight. Comparisons with sentences in unrelated cases provide no reliable basis for finding a sentence manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Both appeals were dismissed.

Fiesal Hizam and Adam Prior pleaded guilty to four conspiracies involving the supply of class A and class B drugs. At the Crown Court at Liverpool, Hizam received an overall sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment and Prior received 12 years. They appealed against sentence, arguing that the sentences were manifestly excessive, that insufficient weight had been given to drug quantities and totality, and that comparison with other cases demonstrated error. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had properly evaluated the duration, scale, scope and roles involved in the conspiracies.

The court dismissed both appeals. Although the sentences were severe, neither was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, which were the recognised bases for appellate intervention.

1. Sentencing approach. The applicable guideline permits sentences of 20 years and above for the most serious and commercial operations involving quantities significantly above Category 1, depending on the offender’s role. In the 20-to-30-year range, some bunching is inevitable because the scope for differentiating between quantities and roles is compressed.
2. Large-scale operations. Where quantities substantially exceed the guideline categories, the exercise is evaluative. Quantity is important but is only one factor, and the judge may be unable to determine the total quantity with precision. The court applied the principles identified in R v Greenfield [2020] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 19. Relevant considerations include quantity, role, position in the supply chain, geographical scope, duration, the number of drugs and the number of conspiracies. Sentences must be scaled according to each offender’s comparative significance, while mitigation has less importance in very serious offending.
3. Comparisons with other cases. Sentences imposed or substituted in unrelated cases cannot meaningfully or reliably be compared because different courts give different weights to different factors. The principle of disparity between co-defendants does not extend to unrelated cases. Sentencing judges should not be encouraged to make such comparisons. The comparisons advanced by reference to R v Cuni [2018] Cr.App.R (S) 18 and R v Wraight and Bannister [2021] EWCA Crim 1968 were therefore inappropriate.
4. Application. The judge was entitled to treat the EncroChat quantities as a snapshot, to take account of the two-year duration and continuing multi-kilogram transactions, and to conclude that the total quantities were likely substantially higher. Regional coverage, four different drugs, importation contacts, continuation after disruption of EncroChat, and the appellants’ roles aggravated the offending. Hizam was in charge of his own commercial operation. Prior performed an important and trusted significant role. Both appeals were dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 11 May 2023, dismissed both appeals against sentence.
2. Crown Court at Liverpool: Following guilty pleas, Hizam was sentenced on 4 November 2022 to 16 years’ imprisonment and Prior to 12 years’ imprisonment for the four drug conspiracies.