R v Armaan Khan

For direct supply to users, the Drugs Guidelines treat quantity as less indicative of harm. The sentencing court must begin at at least category 3 harm and may adjust within that category for the quantity involved. It should not increase the starting point merely because drugs have been divided into a large number of street-dealing wraps.

Very recent convictions for materially identical drug dealing, coupled with reoffending while on licence for that offending, can justify a substantial uplift for aggravation. Time served after recall on an earlier sentence, and uncredited remand resulting from reoffending on licence, do not themselves mitigate sentence. Covid prison conditions may do so.

The appellant was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of possessing heroin and crack cocaine with intent to supply. He received concurrent sentences of six years and six months’ imprisonment.

He appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. He challenged the Recorder’s use of drug quantity to place the offending at the upper end of the applicable guideline range. He also relied on time served following recall to prison, uncredited remand time, Covid prison conditions, and other personal mitigation.

The central issue was whether the Recorder had correctly applied the Drugs Guidelines and properly balanced aggravating and mitigating features.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. It was quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of five years and three months’ imprisonment.

2. The Recorder had erred in treating quantity as a basis for moving the case towards the upper end of the category 3 range. In direct supply to users, including street dealing, quantity is less indicative of harm. The guideline starting point is not solely quantity-based. The amount of drugs was consistent with the category 3 starting point, and the number of wraps simply reflected their division into street deals.

3. There were, however, serious aggravating features. The appellant had recent convictions for the same Class A drug-dealing offences, had received a substantial custodial sentence for them, and had resumed the same offending shortly after release on licence. Those features, together with totality across both counts, justified a substantial increase from the starting point to about five years and six months.

4. No mitigation arose from the recall to prison. The appellant served that time as the remainder of his earlier sentence, and the recall followed his own reoffending while on licence. For the same reason, the fact that remand time did not count towards the present sentence did not mitigate it. Covid prison conditions were relevant mitigation, but the remaining mitigation was unexceptional and justified a reduction of no more than three months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted concurrent sentences of five years and three months’ imprisonment: [2024] EWCA Crim 809.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: Before Recorder Gurney, convicted the appellant on two counts of possession of a Class A drug with intent to supply and imposed concurrent sentences of six years and six months’ imprisonment.