Court of Appeal reduces sentence in drug possession case

Background

In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeal Criminal Division reconsidered the sentencing of Harron Rahman, who had previously pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled drug of Class A, specifically cocaine, with intent to supply. The original sentence was handed down by His Honour Judge Dixon at the Crown Court in Sheffield, where Rahman was sentenced to 26 months' imprisonment.

Facts of the Case

The case originated from an incident on 16 December 2021, when Rahman was stopped and searched by police on unrelated matters. During the search, Rahman voluntarily disclosed that he possessed drugs. Officers found a substantial amount of cocaine in his possession, including 59.2 grams of high-purity cocaine and smaller quantities in self-sealed bags, along with drug paraphernalia and evidence of drug-related communications on his mobile phones.

Basis of Plea

Rahman pleaded guilty on a basis of plea that was accepted by the Crown. He admitted to being addicted to cocaine and claimed he was coerced by his dealer into holding drugs in exchange for feeding his addiction, rather than for financial gain. The plea highlighted his vulnerability and the lack of any significant financial benefit from his activities.

Sentencing Considerations

At sentencing, Judge Dixon acknowledged Rahman's previous good character and the personal mitigation presented, including his mental health struggles following personal tragedies. Despite these factors, the sentence imposed was 26 months, reflecting the serious nature of Class A drug offences.

Grounds for Appeal

The appeal was granted on several grounds, including the assertion that the original sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the lesser role Rahman played in the drug operation, the mitigation factors, and the recommendations of the pre-sentence report, which suggested a community-based sentence.

Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal, led by Mr Justice Bryan, found merit in the appeal. The court noted several deficiencies in the original sentencing remarks, including a failure to adhere to the Basis of Plea and a lack of consideration for the Drug Guidelines and personal mitigation. The court also criticised the generalisation that all Class A drug offences necessitate custodial sentences without considering individual circumstances.

Revised Sentence

After reconsidering the case, the Court of Appeal determined that the appropriate sentence was 18 months' imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the appellant's low risk of reoffending, as evidenced by his conduct over the 28 months since his arrest.

Conclusion

This decision underscores the necessity for courts to carefully evaluate the role and personal circumstances of defendants in drug-related cases. It also highlights the judiciary's recognition of the rehabilitative potential in cases where offenders demonstrate remorse and a commitment to change.

Learn More

For more information on drug-related offences and sentencing, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.