R v Ahmed Sabbagh-Parry

In sentencing drug-supply conspiracies, a leading role, a sophisticated operation, previous convictions and linked offending may justify moving above the guideline range. The court must nevertheless respect the guideline indication that sentences of 20 years or more are for cases involving a quantity significantly higher than category 1. On the facts, 19 years was manifestly excessive and 17 years concurrently was substituted. The conviction challenge failed because no ground disclosed an arguable or material error capable of rendering the convictions unsafe.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Liverpool of two conspiracies to supply class A drugs and one conspiracy to supply class B drugs. He received concurrent 19-year sentences for the class A conspiracies and a five-year sentence for the class B conspiracy.

He renewed applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction challenge concerned disclosure, evidential rulings, jury directions, representation and alleged abuse of process. The sentence challenge disputed the categorisation, the applicant’s leading role and the length of the sentence. The central issue on sentence was whether the upward movement beyond the guideline range was justified.

1. Conviction. The applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction were refused. The court found no merit in the grounds. The trial judge was entitled to refuse disclosure of precise ANPR locations, admit the relevant cell-site material and include the cannabis conspiracy in the indictment. Any error in answering the jury’s question was immaterial. The court was not persuaded that the prosecution had failed in its disclosure obligations. The trial judge’s directions were impeccable, and the trial was managed fairly. The applicant’s representation difficulties were substantially of his own making.
2. Sentence assessment. The categorisation as category 1 with a leading role was sound. The guideline starting point was 14 years, within a range of 12 to 16 years. The judge had compelling grounds for finding that the applicant’s involvement extended before September 2018.
3. Upward adjustment. The sophisticated nature of the applicant’s leading role, his previous convictions and the need to reflect the linked class B offending in the lead sentence justified movement above the category range.
4. Excessiveness and order. The guideline indicated that sentences of 20 years or more were reserved for cases involving a quantity significantly higher than category 1. Although a sentence above the range was justified, 19 years was manifestly excessive and could not properly be imposed by an uplift of three years above the range. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence, quashed the 19-year sentences on Counts 1 and 2 and substituted concurrent 17-year terms. The sentence on Count 3 remained unchanged. Bail was refused, and the amendment application did not require determination.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2024] EWCA Crim 227. Extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction refused. Extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence granted. The concurrent sentences on Counts 1 and 2 were reduced from 19 years to 17 years.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: The applicant was convicted on three conspiracy counts and sentenced to 19 years on Counts 1 and 2, concurrently, and five years on Count 3.