R v Amir Mir

When sentencing for multiple offences, the overriding principle of totality requires an overall sentence which reflects the offender’s aggregate culpability and harm and is just and proportionate. Where concurrent terms are imposed, the notional term for an individual offence may not adequately reflect the whole course of criminality. An upward adjustment may therefore be appropriate, including one beyond the category range for a single offence.

The assessment is holistic. It is not governed by a mathematical comparison between the individual notional sentences and the final concurrent term.

The appellant received a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames for conspiracies to supply cocaine and heroin, and conspiracy to acquire criminal property. The offences concerned an organised operation using EncroChat communications to arrange wholesale quantities of Class A drugs and to launder the proceeds.

The sentencing judge assessed the appellant as occupying the lower end of a leading role and imposed concurrent sentences, increasing the sentence on one count to reflect the totality of the two drug conspiracies and the money-laundering conspiracy. The appellant contended that this adjustment was excessive because the offences arose from the same period and course of conduct.

The central issue was whether the 12-year total sentence was manifestly excessive by reason of a breach of the totality principle.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court applied the Guideline on Totality. In sentencing for more than one offence, the overall sentence must reflect all offending, including overall harm and culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors, and must be just and proportionate. A concurrent sentence may require an upward adjustment because the notional sentence for one count may not reflect the whole criminality. That adjustment may take the sentence outside the category range for a single offence.

3. The judge’s adjustment properly reflected a sophisticated operation involving two Class A drugs, at least 10 kilograms of drugs, and laundering of the proceeds through others employed by the appellant. The drug and money-laundering conspiracies were related, but the laundering activity also demonstrated the extent of the appellant’s involvement in the trafficking operation.

4. On the sentencing judge’s findings, a higher starting point of 14 years for each drug conspiracy could have been justified. The court also considered the one-third guilty-plea reduction generous because no plea or indication of plea had been given in the Magistrates’ Court. Looking at the offending as a whole, a pre-plea term of 18 years was not manifestly excessive. The concurrent total of 12 years was therefore upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the sentence appeal: [2025] EWCA Crim 853.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: imposed a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for two conspiracies to supply Class A drugs and conspiracy to acquire criminal property.