R v Monsur Ali & Ors

For serious commercial drug-supply offending materially beyond guideline quantities, sentencing is a broad evaluative exercise. Quantity remains important, but the court must assess the operation’s duration, sophistication, geographical scope, drugs and conspiracies involved, and the offender’s role and position in the supply chain. No bright line separates importation, wholesale supply and street dealing. Separate conspiracies may attract consecutive sentences where concurrent sentences would fail to reflect overall criminality, subject to a just and proportionate total. Plea credit cannot exceed the guideline maximum merely because an offender was first to break ranks. The final sentences in this case were not manifestly excessive.

On 22 January 2024, the Crown Court at Snaresbrook sentenced Monsur Ali, Mohammed Mohsin Khan and Mahmudul Hassan for serious drug-supply conspiracies. Ali received 22 years, Khan 19 years and three months, and Hassan 16 years. The sentences concerned a substantial, long-running street-dealing conspiracy, with additional wholesale or cannabis offending in the cases of individual appellants.

With leave, all three appellants appealed against sentence. They challenged the 22-year starting point, the use of consecutive sentences, totality, plea credit, personal mitigation and alleged disparity. They argued that the guideline’s 20-year-plus guidance principally concerned importation and that comparable cases supported lower sentences. The central issues were the proper approach to serious drug-supply offending outside the guideline categories and whether the resulting sentences were manifestly excessive.

1. Guideline application. The appeals were dismissed. The Sentencing Council’s guidance permits sentences of 20 years and above for operations on the most serious and commercial scale involving quantities significantly above category 1, depending on the offender’s role. Where offending falls outside the guideline categories, sentencing is a broad evaluative exercise. Quantity is important, but the court must also consider the operation’s duration, sophistication, geographical scope, drugs and conspiracies involved, and the offender’s role and position in the supply chain.
2. There is no bright line between importation, wholesale supply and street dealing. The seriousness of the individual offending governs. Comparisons with sentences in other cases are of limited assistance, particularly where the offenders’ roles differ. The court applied the approach summarised in R v Hizam [2023] EWCA Crim 628, including the inevitability of some bunching in the 20-to-30-year range and the reduced weight generally given to mitigation in very serious cases. The principles identified in R v Welsh [2014] EWCA Crim 1027 and R v Boakye [2012] EWCA Crim 838 were consistent with that approach.
3. The Babaco conspiracy was a sophisticated, exceptionally well-run commercial operation involving substantial quantities of cocaine and heroin over about four years. A starting point above 20 years was therefore justified for leading participants. The wholesale conspiracy also fell outside the guidelines, and an 18-year starting point was properly calibrated by reference to category 1A.
4. Separate conspiracies may attract consecutive sentences where concurrent sentences would fail to reflect the overall criminality. The judge must then temper the aggregate sentence so that the final sentence is just and proportionate. The maximum plea credit under the guideline is one-third. An offender does not obtain additional credit merely for being the first to break ranks.
5. On the individual appeals, the final sentences were not manifestly excessive. Ali’s position at the very top of the conspiracies and his serious offending while on day release and licence justified the sentence. Khan’s comparable offending was aggravated by similar features, while his personal mitigation had been considered. Hassan’s sentence was just and proportionate. The disparity argument also failed because the apparent differences were explained by the offenders’ roles, additional conspiracies, previous convictions, concurrency and the inevitable bunching of sentences.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Appeals against sentence dismissed: [2026] EWCA Crim 533.
2. Crown Court at Snaresbrook — On 22 January 2024, HHJ Canavan sentenced Ali, Khan and Hassan to substantial terms of imprisonment for drug-supply conspiracies.