R v Khumran Mohammed Taj

A sentencing court may assess a leading offender’s overlapping drug-supply activities as a whole where they form parts of a substantial commercial enterprise operating in different locations. The rubric for offending on the most serious and commercial scale may be engaged where drug quantities significantly exceed Category 1, but the overall term must remain proportionate to the scale of the particular enterprise. Sentences approaching 30 years after trial remain reserved for offences involving colossal quantities of class A drugs.

Each sentence on an indictment must be pronounced in open court. A failure to do so is a procedural error, but does not itself make the sentences unlawful; the appellate court may correct it by pronouncing the sentences for each count.

The appellant pleaded guilty to class A drug offences on indictments originating in Bradford and Luton. He controlled a West Yorkshire county-lines operation and separately operated a substantial supply business from his Luton address, where police recovered almost seven kilograms of heroin and other drugs.

At Bradford Crown Court, the Recorder imposed a total of 18 years’ imprisonment after treating the two indictments separately, allowing for overlap and giving 25 per cent credit for guilty pleas. The Recorder did not pronounce the individual sentences in open court.

The appellant contended that all offending was one course of criminal conduct and that consecutive sentencing had produced an excessive total. The appeal therefore concerned the proper total sentence for overlapping large-scale drug operations, and the effect of the procedural error in sentencing.

1. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The total sentence was reduced from 18 years to 16½ years’ imprisonment.
2. The distinction between one course of conduct and two separate operations was not determinative. There was overlap, but the appellant led a large commercial drug enterprise in two regions: a wholesale online operation in Luton and a thriving county-lines operation in West Yorkshire. The court could properly view the offending as a whole.
3. The Sentencing Council guideline rubric for the most serious and commercial offending was engaged. The quantities exceeded Category 1 substantially and the appellant had a leading role. Nevertheless, the case was not among the very worst examples involving colossal quantities of class A drugs. A notional sentence after trial of 24 years was too high; 22 years was appropriate. Applying the undisputed 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction produced 16½ years on the class A counts.
4. The Recorder should have pronounced the sentence on every count in open court. Applying the approach in Ayo, [2022] EWCA Crim 1271, and the observation in R v Whitwell, [2018] EWCA Crim 2301, that omission did not render the sentences unlawful. The court corrected the error by pronouncing the individual sentences itself.
5. The Bradford conspiracy sentence and the relevant Luton class A sentences were each substituted with terms of 16½ years, all concurrent. The two cannabis sentences remained concurrent terms of two years. The Serious Harm Prevention Order remained unaffected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of reducing the total from 18 years to 16½ years’ imprisonment: [2024] EWCA Crim 978.
• Crown Court at Bradford. On 21 September 2023, the Recorder imposed a total of 18 years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to drug offences on Bradford and Luton indictments.