R v Khaled Ahmed

A sentencing judge may assess an offender’s role in a conspiracy by reference to the evidence concerning that conspiracy, even where the offender’s activities in another conspiracy involved different drugs or conduct. A leading role was justified where the offender obtained significant commercial quantities and directed a network of drivers for onward distribution. A sentence may be increased from the guideline starting point to reflect relevant aggravating features and overall criminality, provided the Sentencing Council Guideline and the principle of totality are properly applied. Disparity with a co-defendant does not make a sentence excessive where the co-defendants’ roles and guilty-plea credit materially differ.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Southwark to two conspiracies to supply Class B drugs and possession of Class B drugs. After trial, he was convicted of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. On 13 September 2024, HHJ Nicolas Rimmer sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment for the Class A conspiracy, with concurrent sentences of three years and nine months for the other offences.

After the Single Judge refused leave to appeal sentence, the applicant renewed his application. He argued that his role in the Class A conspiracy was not leading because the drivers he directed handled Class B drugs, and relied subsidiarily on disparity with a co-defendant. The central issues were the proper guideline role classification and whether the total sentence was excessive.

Renewed application for permission to appeal sentence refused.

1. The sentencing judge was well placed to assess the applicant’s role in the Class A conspiracy, having presided over the trial on that count. The evidence entitled him to find that the applicant operated a drug-line phone, obtained significant commercial quantities of cannabis and psilocin from several suppliers, and sold the drugs through a network of drivers for substantial profits.
2. The applicant was therefore properly placed in Category 3 with a leading role under the applicable Sentencing Council Guideline. The starting point was eight and a half years’ custody, with a range extending to 10 years.
3. The judge was entitled to move upwards from the starting point to the top of the range. He took account of the applicant’s previous criminality, the other drug offences and personal mitigation. The previous convictions were old and mostly irrelevant, but the relevant aggravating and mitigating matters had nevertheless been considered.
4. The principle of totality was respected through concurrent sentences for the other offences. The sentence was not rendered excessive by comparison with Talal, who was one of the applicant’s suppliers, whose role was found to be at the lower end of significant, and who received guilty-plea credit. The more comparable co-defendant, Mohamed or Mohamad Ahmad, received seven years and six months after credit for plea, equivalent to 10 years after trial.
5. Even if Talal’s sentence had been lenient, that did not make the applicant’s sentence excessive where it complied with the guideline and all relevant matters had been taken into account.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — the renewed application for permission to appeal sentence was refused on 2 September 2025.
• Crown Court at Southwark — HHJ Nicolas Rimmer sentenced the applicant on 13 September 2024 to 10 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, with concurrent sentences of three years and nine months for the Class B offences.
• Single Judge — refused leave to appeal sentence.