R v Umar Arshad

Where sentencing guidelines place drug supply into a custodial institution in a harm category, that prison context cannot be used again as an aggravating factor. A distinct setting or manner of commission may still aggravate the offence. Concealing drugs in a court building while the offender is in the dock may constitute gross aggravation because it demonstrates contempt for the rule of law. After lawful aggravating and mitigating factors are assessed, a sentence will stand if it is neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. Immediate custody may be justified where the circumstances of the offence support a finding that there is no realistic prospect of rehabilitation.

Following a trial at Reading Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of possessing 47 grams of cannabis resin with intent to supply after it was hidden in a toilet in a court building while he was on trial. A separate possession count attracted no separate penalty. On 26 June 2025, HHJ Daly sentenced him to 15 months’ immediate imprisonment. He appealed with leave, arguing that supply into custody had been double-counted because it had already determined Category 3 harm under the sentencing guidelines, and that the sentence should have been suspended because rehabilitation was realistic. The central issue was whether the court location constituted a distinct aggravating feature and whether immediate custody was justified.

The appeal against sentence was refused.

1. The court accepted that the sentencing guidelines placed the offence in Category 3 because it involved supply in a custodial institution. The recommended starting point was one year’s custody, with a range of 26 weeks to three years. The custodial context was already reflected in that categorisation and could not be used again to increase the sentence.
2. The sentencing judge had not, however, treated the prison context as a further aggravating factor. The offence was committed in a court building while the appellant was in the dock. That was a separate and grossly aggravating feature, demonstrating the utmost contempt for the rule of law.
3. The appellant’s previous convictions were additional aggravating factors. Personal mitigation and delay were also considered. Even beginning with the one-year guideline starting point, the aggravating factors could have justified a sentence of about 20 months. The 15-month term was therefore plainly open to the judge and was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
4. The judge was entitled to conclude that there was no realistic prospect of rehabilitation and that immediate custody was the only proper sentence. The circumstances included the decision to smuggle drugs into a court building and to contest the case through to verdict despite the strength of the evidence. In such circumstances, suspension was rightly rejected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 5 September 2025, the appeal against sentence was refused. The 15-month immediate custodial sentence was upheld as neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive: [2025] EWCA Crim 1456.
• Crown Court at Oxford: On 26 June 2025, HHJ Daly sentenced the appellant to 15 months’ immediate imprisonment following conviction. The separate possession count attracted no separate penalty.
• Reading Crown Court: The appellant was convicted after trial of possessing cannabis resin with intent to supply.