R v Mahtar Sohna

This is a renewed application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.

On 13 December 2023, in the Crown Court at Nottingham, the applicant (now aged 52) was sentenced by HHJ Sampson to a total of 6 years' imprisonment, for offences of being concerned in the supply of controlled drugs of Class A (diamorphine, cocaine and MDMA), Class B (cannabis and ketamine) and Class C (diazepam). He had pleaded guilty to the offences on 3 February 2023 but on a basis that was unacceptable to the prosecution.

There was therefore a Newton hearing several months later before Judge Sampson at which the applicant gave evidence at length himself. In the event the judge rejected the applicant's basis of plea in part but also rejected the prosecution's basis in part. He therefore allowed 25 per cent credit for the guilty pleas. He concluded that the appropriate total sentence after trial would have been 8 years.

The applicant did not pursue an appeal within time. Acting in person he did not lodge his appeal until 30 July 2024, some 7 months later. He therefore requires an extension of time of 198 days. In addition, he requires an extension of time of 19 days in which to renew the applications refused by the single judge. Although we can see no good reason for these long delays, we have nevertheless considered the merits of the proposed appeal.

The six counts to which the applicant pleaded guilty concerned the supply of the drugs we have listed between 23 December 2020 and 30 September 2021. The applicant came to the attention of the police as a result of the activities of a man called Edwards-Stuart. Packages containing Class A drugs were intercepted in the course of being shipped from the Netherlands to Edwards-Stuart's address in Newark. A search warrant was executed at that address in May 2021. The police discovered quantities of cocaine, MDMA and cannabis as well as cash. There was a drug-producing preparation area in the garage at the premises. The police also seized several mobile phones. Examination of one of those phones revealed numerous text messages relating to the sale of drugs, including advertisement texts to numerous presumed users stating that drugs could be collected from the Newark area.

It turned out that two of the contacts on the phone could be attributed to the applicant. On the strength of that discovery a warrant was executed at the applicant's home address. The police found 2.79 grams of cocaine (valued at £300), a small amount of cannabis, a set of digital scales containing traces of cocaine and cannabis, an iPhone, a Nokia handset and a lock-knife. Examination of messages on the applicant's phone revealed that the applicant and others were referring to supplies of cannabis in kilogram deals. There was a message in January 2021 where an individual was chasing the applicant for money in relation to a heroin deal. In another exchange of messages there was discussion of the potential purchase of a kilo of cocaine for £43,000. There were discussions about cocaine, cutting agents and the production of crack cocaine. There was a discussion about supplying 50,000 tablets and travelling to the applicant's native Gambia where they could stay in his villa.

There was discussion about the supply of drugs by the applicant and Edwards-Stuart across the United Kingdom including Doncaster, Sheffield, Peterborough, Holbeach in Lincolnshire and even Scotland. Edwards-Stuart sent the applicant a message saying: "Thanks my brother. We will make a good team" to which the applicant replied: "We taking over. Yes indeed we make a good team." In short, the messages indicated that the applicant and Edwards-Stuart were working together in the supply of large quantities of drugs from which each of them intended to make a substantial profit.

There was no evidence of any supply of drugs after January 2021. There was no evidence that the drugs found at Edwards-Stuart’s home in May 2021 were connected to the applicant. There was no evidence that substantial profits had in fact been made by the applicant or Edwards-Stuart. There was talk about their ambition to become significant drug dealers together but that talk bore little fruit.

Another aspect of the case related to a neighbour of Edwards-Stuart, a man called Courtney Voce, a prolific Nottingham drug dealer, who had been sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment for Class A drug supply. It was clear from messages on the applicant's phone that he and Voce were connected. The applicant said that Voce gave him cocaine in return for dealing relatively small quantities of Class A drugs occasionally and also for passing on messages. The prosecution case was that the applicant had two fellow Gambian associates who were prepared to deal Class A drugs supplied by Voce in Scotland. The prosecution case was that the applicant arranged for this to happen and Voce did supply the drugs including cocaine and almost a kilo of heroin. The prosecution case was that the applicant was in direct communication with the buyers in Scotland and facilitated the supply. It was unclear what profit was made or to what extent the sales were successful but it was certain these men were supplying Class A drugs in Scotland and that the applicant was concerned in that operation.

The judge made findings of fact at the Newton hearing which he set out in his ruling. He was satisfied that the applicant's messages showed clear evidence of involvement in dealing about a kilogram of heroin and other drugs, and an ambition to deal larger quantities in the future which came to nothing. The judge found that in January 2021 the applicant was busy trying to establish himself. He wanted significant profit but earned nothing. The judge rejected the prosecution's assertions that the applicant fell within the “leading role” category for Class A drugs supply. Taking the Class A counts together, the judge concluded that they fell within category 2 of the relevant Sentencing Council guideline at the level of “significant role”. He was satisfied that the applicant had been aware of the scale of Voce’s operation and had an expectation of significant financial gain. He had involved others in Scotland. The starting point for category 2 significant role is 8 years.

For counts 4 and 5 (Class B supply of cannabis and ketamine) it was category 3 significant role, with a starting point of 1 year. In respect of count 6 (supply of the class C drug diazepam) there was a guideline starting point of 6 months.

The judge had regard to the principle of totality and to the mitigation put forward on the applicant's behalf. At the time of the offending the applicant was going through matrimonial troubles with difficulties in relation to seeing his children. His life was at a low point. There were impressive references which the judge accepted showed the applicant to be a man of otherwise good standing, hard-working, a talented musician and well regarded. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors and taking into account totality the judge arrived at his figure of 8 years after trial.

In his grounds of appeal the applicant says that the judge should have had the benefit of a pre-sentence report as it was his first custodial sentence. He repeats evidence he had given during the Newton hearing that he was doing two jobs at once, delivering parcels and working as a musician facilitating community drumming around the UK. He says that he did not know the people he was texting were arrested for drug dealing, and that he had ceased contact with them when he was able to rehabilitate himself and his mental health improved. Although he spoke about drugs in his text messages, he said he never sold any drugs to anyone except three people with whom he socialised. He therefore challenges the judge's categorisation of his offending and maintains that his sentence was manifestly excessive.

We have considered all the material which the applicant desires should be put before us. For the record, this includes an email to the Criminal Appeal Office dated 10 May 2025, complaining about the reporting by the BBC of the applicant's involvement in the offending and his relationship with (we assume) Mr Edwards-Stuart.

We note that although the judge did not have the benefit of a pre-sentence report, he did have a liaison and diversion court report prepared by a qualified healthcare professional. The report addressed any concerns regarding the applicant's vulnerability and set out a good deal of background information akin to a pre-sentence report. In these circumstances we are satisfied that it was not necessary for the judge to obtain a pre-sentence report nor is one necessary now. A substantial sentence of immediate imprisonment was inevitable.

As to the length of the sentence, the judge heard a great deal of evidence over a whole day in reaching his conclusions on the proper factual basis for sentencing the applicant. The judge accepted some of the defence submissions in the basis of plea and rejected others. This is reflected in the level of credit he allowed for the guilty pleas.

We agree with the single judge there is no basis for challenging the judge's findings in the Netwon hearing. The judge found that it was the applicant's ambition to become a significant drug dealer and that he planned to make a significant profit. The judge recognised and took account of the applicant's previous good character. The judge applied the Sentencing Council guidelines appropriately. There is no arguable basis to suggest that the judge erred in his approach.

Accordingly, it is not arguable that the applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive. Because there is no arguable merit in the proposed appeal, we refuse leave and we also refuse the extension of time which would have been necessary to bring the appeal.