R v Blendi Aliaj

Changes in sentencing law which make more serious offending eligible for suspension do not alter the principled approach under the Imposition Guideline. The sentencing court must consider the relevant factors, but may conclude that seriousness outweighs rehabilitation prospects, low risk of reoffending and other factors favouring suspension. That conclusion is evaluative, and appellate intervention is rare unless the judge proceeded on a wrong principle. A subordinate role and personal circumstances do not require suspension where the offender voluntarily participated in drug dealing over a period of time.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Inner London to possessing cocaine and ketamine with intent to supply. He received 27 months’ imprisonment on the Class A drug count and three months concurrently on the Class B drug count. The sentencing judge treated him as having a significant but subordinate role in category 3 street dealing, and applied credit for his guilty plea.

He appealed by leave of the Single Judge, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to apply the Imposition Guideline correctly and should have suspended the sentence. The appeal concerned the effect of changes taking effect on 22 March 2026, which expanded eligibility for suspended sentences, and whether the factors favouring suspension outweighed the seriousness of the offending.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. The sentencing judge assessed the offending as involving a significant role under direction, within category 3 street dealing. He reduced the starting point from four years and six months to three years and six months for two lesser-role features, allowed six months for personal mitigation, and applied the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction. It was accepted that there was no error in principle in a sentence of three years before credit for the plea.
2. The changes in the law taking effect on 22 March 2026 made suspension available for significantly more serious offending. They did not, however, alter the principled approach required by the Imposition Guideline. The judge considered the relevant factors, including rehabilitation prospects, risk of reoffending, personal mitigation, possible impact on others and compliance with court orders.
3. The judge found probably good prospects of rehabilitation and no high risk of reoffending. Nevertheless, he concluded that the seriousness of the offending required immediate custody. That was an evaluative judgment which was open to him in principle and with which the Court of Appeal would rarely interfere.
4. The appellant was not driven into offending by drug dependence. He voluntarily entered the operation to obtain money to repay gambling debts while unemployed, and the offending continued for some weeks. In those circumstances, his courier role, low risk of reoffending and rehabilitation prospects did not make suspension mandatory. The judge was entitled to give decisive weight to seriousness.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 12 August 2026, the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2026] EWCA Crim 1141 .
• Crown Court at Inner London: On 4 June 2026, HHJ Boyle sentenced the appellant to 27 months’ imprisonment on count 1 and three months concurrently on count 2.