R v Harron Rahman

A sentencing court must sentence on the accepted basis of plea, identify the applicable offence category and role under the relevant guideline, and give adequate reasons for its approach. It must address material mitigation and the pre-sentence report. A general assertion that imprisonment must follow for Class A drug offending cannot replace an individual assessment of seriousness and sentencing options.

Where a custodial term of two years or less is appropriate, current prison conditions, sustained absence of further offending, realistic rehabilitation prospects and a suitable community assessment may support suspension of the sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Sheffield to possessing cocaine with intent to supply, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The accepted basis of plea placed his involvement in the context of cocaine addiction, a drug debt, limited expected benefit in drugs rather than money, and holding drugs for his dealer.

His Honour Judge Dixon imposed 26 months’ immediate imprisonment. The appellant appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. He challenged the categorisation of the offence, the treatment of mitigation and the pre-sentence report, the failure to consider suspension, and the absence of further offending during more than 28 months on bail.

The central issue was whether the sentencing judge’s approach required the Court of Appeal to conduct the sentencing exercise afresh.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentencing remarks disclosed a flawed approach and the 26-month immediate custodial sentence was manifestly excessive. The court quashed it and resentenced the appellant.

2. The judge had not sentenced consistently with the accepted basis of plea. That basis did not establish an intention to make money; it described limited, if any, financial or other advantage, including meeting the appellant’s own drug habit. The court held that the offending was classic Category 3 street dealing in a lesser role, with a starting point of 36 months’ custody.

3. The sentencing remarks did not adequately address the Drug Guidelines or explain the position adopted within them. The quantity of cocaine was typical of street dealing and did not justify an increase. There were no aggravating factors. The judge also failed to address substantial personal mitigation, the pre-sentence report and its recommendation for a community-based disposal.

4. It was wrong to treat immediate imprisonment as inevitable through a general proposition about Class A drug dealing. The court applied the Imposition Guidelines and treated the principles in R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 as relevant. Current prison conditions, the lengthy delay without further offending, the appellant’s treatment progress, the report’s recommendation and his realistic rehabilitation prospects all supported suspension.

5. After a significant reduction for mitigation to 24 months’ custody, and 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea, the proper sentence was 18 months’ imprisonment. It was suspended for 24 months, with the usual conditions and a 20-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the immediate custodial sentence and substituted an 18-month sentence suspended for 24 months: [2024] EWCA Crim 1664.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: His Honour Judge Dixon sentenced the appellant to 26 months’ imprisonment on 30 September 2024 following his guilty plea.