R v Mahtar Sohna

In a sentencing appeal, the absence of a pre-sentence report does not invalidate the sentence where the sentencing judge has sufficient equivalent information about the offender’s vulnerability and background, and immediate custody is inevitable. A challenge to factual findings made after a Newton hearing requires an arguable basis for disturbing those findings. Where the judge has properly applied the applicable Sentencing Council guidelines, allowed appropriate credit for guilty pleas, and taken account of mitigation and totality, the sentence will not be regarded as manifestly excessive without an identifiable error in principle or approach.

The applicant pleaded guilty to six offences involving the supply of Class A, Class B and Class C controlled drugs. His basis of plea was unacceptable to the prosecution, so the sentencing judge conducted a Newton hearing. The judge rejected parts of both accounts, treated the Class A offending as category 2 significant role offending, and imposed a total sentence of six years’ imprisonment after allowing 25 per cent credit for the guilty pleas.

The applicant applied out of time for leave to appeal against sentence. A single judge refused the application. The applicant renewed the application and sought extensions of time. He challenged the absence of a pre-sentence report, the factual findings and categorisation of the offending, and the length of sentence. The central issue was whether there was any arguable basis for an appeal.

The court refused both the extension of time and leave to appeal. Although the delays of 198 days and 19 days were unexplained by any good reason, the court considered the merits of the proposed appeal.

1. Pre-sentence report. The sentencing judge had not obtained a pre-sentence report, but had a liaison and diversion court report prepared by a qualified healthcare professional. It addressed the applicant’s vulnerability and provided substantial background information akin to a pre-sentence report. In those circumstances, a pre-sentence report was not necessary at sentence and was not required for the appeal. Immediate imprisonment was inevitable.
2. Newton hearing and factual findings. The sentencing judge had heard extensive evidence over a full day and had accepted some parts of the defence basis while rejecting others. The resulting findings were reflected in the credit given for the guilty pleas. There was no arguable basis for challenging those findings.
3. Sentencing approach. The judge was entitled to find that the applicant had aspired to become a significant drug dealer and intended to make a substantial profit. The judge also took account of his previous good character, personal mitigation and the principle of totality. The applicable Sentencing Council guidelines were applied appropriately.
4. Outcome. There was no arguable basis for contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Leave to appeal and the extensions of time required to pursue the appeal were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on the renewed application, refused leave to appeal against sentence and refused the extensions of time, [2025] EWCA Crim 1258.
• Single judge: refused the applicant’s application for leave to appeal.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: on 13 December 2023, HHJ Sampson sentenced the applicant to six years’ imprisonment following a Newton hearing.