R v Tayyab Iqbal

In sentencing for large-scale drug trafficking, a leading role does not require the offender to be the person at the very top of the organisation. The assessment is fact-sensitive. Close links to the source, import-style packaging, use of a sham business as cover, professionally adapted vehicles, repeated wholesale transfers and an expectation of substantial financial advantage may indicate a leading role. Where the quantity significantly exceeds the guideline’s Category 1 quantity, a sentence above 20 years may be appropriate before aggravating and mitigating adjustments. The appellate court may intervene where the sentence, after credit for a guilty plea and proper consideration of mitigation, remains manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply cocaine and to possession of heroin with intent to supply. The Birmingham Crown Court sentenced him to 16 years’ imprisonment for the cocaine conspiracy and a concurrent term of six years for the heroin offence. After a single judge refused leave, he renewed his application to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

He argued that his role was significant rather than leading and that the sentencing judge had failed to give sufficient and transparent credit for mitigation. The central issues were the proper categorisation of his role under the Drugs Guidelines and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

1. Disposition. Leave to appeal was granted. The sentence on Count 2 was quashed and a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment was substituted. The concurrent six-year sentence for possession of heroin with intent to supply remained in force. The appeal was allowed to that extent only.
2. Role categorisation. The applicant was properly categorised as having a leading role. The evidence showed close links to the source, packaging consistent with drugs near importation, and a sham frozen-food business used as cover. He had rented and equipped the unit, maintained three vehicles with professionally fitted hides, participated in more than one wholesale transfer and had an expectation of substantial financial advantage.
3. A leading role does not require the offender to be the Mr Big at the top of the organisation. The relevant question is whether the particular facts show factors indicative of a leading role. Each case turns on its own facts, so comparison with other cases, including R v Johnson [2022] EWCA Crim 1575, was not helpful.
4. Sentence. The conspiracy involved a quantity five times the guideline’s indicative Category 1 quantity. A sentence exceeding 20 years was appropriate before aggravating and mitigating features were considered. Aggravation arose from the destruction of evidence and the need to reflect the totality of the cocaine and heroin offending.
5. The sentencing judge had taken account of the matters relied on in mitigation, either expressly or through the material on the digital case system. Those matters justified only a modest reduction in the context of very serious drug offending. A sentence of 21 years before full guilty-plea credit, equivalent to 14 years after credit, would have been appropriate. The sentence of 16 years was therefore manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the renewed application, leave to appeal was granted. The sentence on Count 2 was quashed and 14 years’ imprisonment substituted; the appeal was otherwise dismissed. [2024] EWCA Crim 823
• Birmingham Crown Court: The applicant was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply cocaine and a concurrent six-year term for possession of heroin with intent to supply.
• Single judge: Leave to appeal against sentence was refused, leading to the renewed application.