R v Jahangir Khan

In this case orders under section 45A of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 have been made in relation to the complainants. No matter relating to either complainant shall, during their lifetime, be included in any publication if likely to lead members of the public to identify them as being a person concerned in the proceedings.

On 22 May 2025 in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, the appellant (then aged 36) pleaded guilty upon re-arraignment to one count of supply of a controlled Class A drug, one count of possession of controlled Class A drug and seven counts of possession of Class C drugs. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 46 months in relation to count 1 concerning the supply of Class A drugs. He was sentenced to 46 months concurrent on the count of possession of Class A drugs and he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on the remaining counts concerning the Class C drugs all concurrent. The total sentence was therefore one of 46 months.

This case concerns two teenagers who we shall refer to as "A" and "B", both aged 17 at the time. A was contacted by the appellant on the social network Grindr. The appellant told A that he would provide her with ketamine if she and B performed oral sex upon him. The appellant's position was that he believed them both to be over the age of 18, and this was not disputed at trial.

A and B attended the appellant's address in November 2024. In exchange for 15 tablets both performed oral sex upon the appellant. A and B consumed the pills on the way home and they became critically ill. B turned blue and stopped moving and an ambulance was called. At 5.00 am the next morning A began to have breathing difficulties and she did not recall anything until she came around in the Resuscitation Department at the Whittington Hospital. Both were discharged from hospital on 27 November 2024, having received treatment from the Intensive Care Team, which included medication to reverse opioid toxicity. Both A and B provided the police with a description of the appellant and his address.

The appellant was arrested. His room was searched and a variety of drugs were found including of the type of pill taken by A and B which were both later classified as a Class A synthetic opioid. There was also a large quantity of various Class C drugs, amounting to approximately 60,000 tablets of varying drugs. Officers also found scales, a vacuum sealer and a mini sealing machine. The appellant gave no comment to all questions in his police interview. The appellant was otherwise of previous good character.

In sentencing the appellant, the judge held as follows in relation to the counts concerning Class A drugs. First, the offending fell into a significant role category although at the lower end. In coming to this conclusion, the judge took account of the fact that only 15 tablets were supplied to A and B. The appellant had an operational role within a chain which involved him holding substantial quantities of drugs of Class A and C. The appellant was expecting significant advantage which, in this particular case, was the receipt of sexual services. The appellant had an awareness of the scale of the operation that he was involved in.

Secondly, it was common ground that the offending was within category 3, the starting point for a category 3 significant role for a defendant of good character, who faced trial and was convicted was 4½ years' imprisonment with a range of 3½ years to 7 years' imprisonment. Thirdly, aggravating factors were that the drugs were supplied to under 18s, though it was accepted that the appellant was unaware of the fact. He was though aware of the significant age differential between himself and the victims. It was also an aggravating fact that he exposed both A and B to the risk of serious harm. Fourthly, in relation to the Class C drugs these were category 2 offences and the sentence after trial would have been 18 months' imprisonment with a range of 1 to 3 years. Fifthly, in relation to mitigation the judge took into account that the appellant was a person of good character. He had experienced ill-health and become unfit to work. He had dabbled with self-medication and was experiencing a personal crisis in his life. There was a positive pre-sentence report. He had good character references and there was evidence of positive progress whilst in custody. In view of this the judge imposed, bearing in mind totality, a total sentence of 48 months after trial. He then gave credit of 15 per cent for the plea of guilty which on his reckoning reduced the sentence to 46 months.

We turn to the grounds of appeal. In summary, Mr Okewale has in his helpful submissions today and in earlier written submissions, argued that the total sentence passed was manifestly excessive in that the judge wrongly categorised the offending as a significant role rather than a lesser role, set too high a starting point for counts 1 and 2, in relation to the Class A drugs, failed to give proper credit for the guilty plea, failed to give sufficient weight to personal mitigation and failed properly to apply the principle of totality.

We start by considering the complaint that the judge failed to give proper credit for the guilty plea. As for this the starting point chosen by the judge was 48 months' imprisonment prior to credit for the guilty plea. He calculated a 15 per cent reduction as giving rise to a 46-month term. There appears therefore to be an error in the calculation. A 15 per cent reduction on 48 months would result in the sentence being reduced by 7.2 months. In the circumstances and giving the appellant somewhat the benefit of the doubt, we propose to reduce the sentence to one of 40 months' imprisonment to correct the error in credit which was due.

In relation to the other complaints, we consider the findings made by the judge fell within his discretion. He addressed all relevant considerations. He was justified in his categorisation of the offence as involving a significant operational role. The fact that two teenagers were in effect poisoned by his supply to them of seriously toxic drugs is a substantial aggravating factor. Standing back and viewing this case from the perspective of totality a sentence of 40 months' imprisonment is, in our judgment, appropriate.

In the circumstances, we will allow the appeal and reduce the sentence to one of 40 months' imprisonment.