R v Ajmer Singh

In sentencing for large-scale supply of prescription drugs, a commercial and sophisticated operation may justify treating an offender as having a leading role even if others stand higher in the chain. The totality assessment must reflect the aggregate quantity and variety of drugs and any recent similar conviction. For offending of this seriousness, family impact will generally carry little weight against the public interest in enforcement of the criminal law. A sentence is not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle where the sentencing judge has properly reflected the available mitigation and guilty plea.

After pleading guilty in the Crown Court at Liverpool to 13 counts of possessing class B and class C prescription drugs with intent to supply, the applicant received concurrent sentences of five years and three months. The sentencing judge treated him as a leading participant in an organised import and wholesale operation, applied a 25 per cent guilty plea reduction, and gave limited weight to family circumstances. After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application, challenging the seven-year sentence after trial and the treatment of his role and mitigation.

Application refused.

1. Pre-sentence report. The court confirmed, for the purposes of section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020, that no pre-sentence report was required in this case and was not required at the appellate stage.
2. Role and culpability. The applicant had been involved in a sophisticated, organised and commercial operation involving imported prescription drugs, substantial quantities and an expectation of significant financial advantage. Even if one or two people stood above him in the chain of responsibility, the sentencing judge was entitled to find that he had played a leading role. There was no basis for criticising that conclusion.
3. Seriousness and totality. The offences involved two class B drugs and 11 different class C drugs, including very large quantities of tablets. Taking the aggregate criminality and the applicant’s relatively recent conviction for similar offending into account, the sentence before mitigation had to be substantially above seven years. A sentence of seven years after trial was therefore justified and complied with the totality principle.
4. Mitigation. The impact of imprisonment on family members was generally of little significance compared with the public interest in enforcing the criminal law for offending of this seriousness. That approach was consistent with R v Welsh [2014] EWCA Crim. 1027. The seven-year sentence after trial fully reflected the available mitigation, including the applicant’s family circumstances, character references and personal difficulties. There was no criticism of the 25 per cent credit for the guilty pleas.
5. Disposition. It was not arguable that the sentences were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). On 23 April 2024, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2024] EWCA Crim 556.
• Single judge. The initial application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
• Crown Court at Liverpool. On 18 August 2023, the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of five years and three months’ imprisonment on all counts.