R v Shahakir Ali

MR JUSTICE GOOSE: This is a renewed application for leave to appeal sentence by the applicant Shahakir Ali, who is now aged 36. On 10 October 2023 in the Crown Court at Worcester the applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply class A drugs, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. He had previously pleaded guilty to an offence of dangerous driving, contrary to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. On 21 December 2023 he appeared before His Honour Judge Cole and was sentenced to 10 years and four months' imprisonment for the conspiracy offence, with a concurrent sentence of eight months' imprisonment for the dangerous driving offence. He was also disqualified from driving for 52 months.

We pause to observe that having committed the offence of dangerous driving, the applicant should have been the subject of an obligatory Extended Retest, pursuant to section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It appears that this was overlooked by the Court in the sentencing hearing. We are unable to correct that error in this Court - see section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968). It appears that the judge was not wholly assisted upon this point by counsel.

The application for leave to appeal sentence was refused by the Single Judge who gave careful and comprehensive reasons.

It is unnecessary for the purpose of this renewed application for the court to set out the facts of the offences in any detail. The conspiracy offence involved a County Lines drug dealing operation from Birmingham into the Worcester area. The drug line was known as the "Kam" line and used several different numbers. Although the period of the conspiracy was asserted to be from 1 January 2018, the evidence concentrated on the events between May and October 2020, a period of five months.

A co-defendant, Syed Alom was the owner of the Kam drug line whilst the applicant worked under him, running his own separate drugs line, and also controlling a sub-dealer. The drug lines were well established by the time the police began their surveillance in May 2020. The evidence established phone contact between the conspirators and regular journeys from Birmingham to Worcester to deliver drugs and collect cash. The applicant appeared to work closely with Alom.

Towards the end of the period, on 2 October 2020, the applicant and Alom were observed by the police to meet the occupants of another vehicle in a car park at the rear of a public house in Worcester. The applicant and Alom were in a Jaguar car which was driven by the applicant. When the police attended to stop the Jaguar it was used to ram the police car and made its escape. A package of drugs was thrown from the window later recovered by the police and found to contain 225 wraps totalling 90 grams of cocaine. The jaguar car was later found abandoned but within it there was further cash of £3,745.

The applicant called the police the following day claiming that his Jaguar had been stolen by others. He was later arrested and on search of his home address £1,700 in cash was recovered, together with designer watches, designer clothing and jewellery. In other parts of the house a further £7,000 in cash was recovered.

The applicant provided a basis of plea when he pleaded guilty which asserted that his involvement in the conspiracy was just during the period of police observation for five months. It had been in existence before his participation, and he was not the prime mover. He accepted that he had run a single line but claimed that he mostly delivered drugs at street level. The applicant sought to argue that the quantity of drugs with which he was involved was substantially lower than the 14 kilograms asserted by the prosecution.

Expert evidence was advanced on behalf of both the prosecution and the defence which the judge was invited to consider and make his findings for the purposes of sentence. Within his sentencing remarks at pages 3F to 5C the judge concluded that whilst a fair assessment of the drugs quantity was 9.36 kilograms, he was satisfied to the criminal standard that it was at least five kilograms. On the basis of that, finding the harm caused by the conspiracy offence fell within Category 1 of the Drugs Guideline.

The judge concluded that the applicant's role was a significant one, towards the upper end, but not within the leading category. Accordingly, the starting point for sentence was 10 years with a range of nine to 12 years. The judge also took into account the dangerous driving offence, for which he imposed a concurrent sentence of eight months' imprisonment after a full guilty plea discount.

Adopting a 12-year sentence, the judge reduced it to take account of delay and mitigation and applied a 10 percent late plea discount before imposing a sentence of 10 years and four months' imprisonment.

The applicant seeks to argue that the judge adopted too high a sentence within the range, gave insufficient account for the basis of plea and insufficient weight for the available mitigation.

On behalf of the applicant, Mr McCarthy KC, for whose submissions we are grateful, argued that the sentence was excessive.

In refusing leave to appeal, the Single Judge stated that the sentence reflected the aggravating factors including the dangerous driving. Also, the judge had appropriately reduced the quantity of drugs, in careful and reasoned analysis, and had applied appropriate reductions for mitigation. The Single Judge concluded that the grounds of appeal have no arguable merit.

We have considered this renewed application for leave to appeal sentence for ourselves and after hearing Mr McCarthy KC have come to the same conclusion as the Single Judge. The applicant played an important, significant role within the conspiracy. The fact that he operated his own line as well as working closely with the leading offender supports the conclusion that a sentence at the top of the range was appropriate before downward adjustment to reflect mitigation. We find no arguable merit in this application and accordingly we must refuse it.