R v Shahakir Ali

In a renewed application for leave to appeal sentence, the appellate court will refuse permission where the sentencing judge made sustainable findings on drug quantity and role, selected a sentence within the applicable guideline range, and gave proper credit for mitigation and a late guilty plea. A defendant’s operation of a separate drug line, coupled with close work for a leading offender, may support a significant role and a sentence at the top of the applicable range before mitigation.

Dangerous driving requires an obligatory extended retest under Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The Court of Appeal cannot correct an omitted retest where its powers are excluded by Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Worcester Crown Court to conspiracy to supply class A drugs and dangerous driving. The conspiracy concerned a county-lines operation between Birmingham and Worcester. The sentencing judge found that the conspiracy involved at least five kilograms of drugs, placing harm in Category 1 of the Drugs Guideline.

On 21 December 2023, the judge imposed 10 years and four months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy and a concurrent eight months for dangerous driving, with a 52-month driving disqualification. The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal sentence after refusal by the Single Judge. He contended that the sentence was too high within the guideline range and gave inadequate weight to his basis of plea and mitigation.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal sentence was refused. The court agreed with the Single Judge that the proposed grounds had no arguable merit.

2. The sentencing judge had made a careful and reasoned assessment of drug quantity. Although the assessment was 9.36 kilograms, the judge was sure that the quantity was at least five kilograms. Category 1 harm under the Drugs Guideline therefore applied.

3. The applicant’s role was significant and towards the upper end of that category, though not leading. He operated his own drug line while working closely with the leading offender and controlled a sub-dealer. Those features supported a sentence at the top of the guideline range before a reduction for mitigation.

4. The sentencing judge had then reduced the provisional sentence for delay and mitigation and applied a 10 per cent reduction for the late guilty plea. The resulting sentence was not arguably excessive.

5. The court additionally observed that dangerous driving should have attracted an obligatory extended retest under section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. That requirement had apparently been overlooked. By section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, however, the court could not correct the error in this appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed application for leave to appeal sentence refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 649.
• Crown Court at Worcester: On 21 December 2023, the applicant was sentenced to 10 years and four months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply class A drugs and eight months concurrently for dangerous driving, with a 52-month driving disqualification.