R v Mohammed Jakir Hussain

A sentence is not excessive or wrong in principle where the sentencing judge has correctly assessed the offender’s role, selected a guideline harm category supported by the evidence, and adjusted the starting point for relevant aggravating and mitigating features.

Supplying, or attempting to supply, drugs into a prison is materially different from ordinary street dealing. It may therefore justify a consecutive sentence. The totality principle does not require separate express treatment of every sentence, provided the sentencing structure and overall term show that totality has been considered.

The appellant pleaded guilty to one offence of being concerned in the supply of a Class A controlled drug. He was later convicted of further Class A and Class B drug-supply offences, conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, and conspiracy to convey prohibited articles into prison contrary to the Prison Act 1952.

On 28 June 2024, the Crown Court at Snaresbrook imposed concurrent sentences amounting to 17 years’ imprisonment for the drug offences and a consecutive five-year sentence for the prison-conveyance conspiracy, producing a total of 22 years.

The appeal challenged only the five-year consecutive sentence. The central issues were whether that sentence was excessive or wrong in principle, and whether the judge had given sufficient weight to totality.

1. Appeal dismissed. The five-year sentence for conspiracy to convey drugs into prison was neither excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The Recorder was entitled to use the Drugs Supply Guideline. The appellant had played a leading role. Because the precise drug quantity was unknown, category 3 harm was appropriate. The Recorder adopted the lower Class B starting point of four years and increased it to five years for the aggravating features, including sophisticated methods and technology designed to avoid detection, three attempted deliveries, and evidence of a wider prison risk from drones. The unsuccessful attempts provided mitigation. The court also considered it unlikely that the drugs were solely Class B, given the appellant’s other Class A offending.

3. A consecutive sentence was appropriate. Illicit drug supply into prison is in a wholly different category from street dealing. It was therefore distinct from the other drug offending for which the appellant had received concurrent sentences.

4. The Recorder had sufficiently addressed totality. He made the conspiracy to supply drugs concurrent rather than consecutive to reflect totality, and the overall sentencing structure showed that he had considered the aggregate term. A sentencing judge need not expressly address totality in relation to every individual sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the five-year consecutive sentence and upheld the total sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: on 28 June 2024, imposed concurrent sentences amounting to 17 years’ imprisonment for the drug offending and a consecutive five-year sentence for conspiracy to convey prohibited articles into prison.