R v Khaled Ahmed [2025] EWCA Crim 1245

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2025] EWCA Crim 1245Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Tuesday 2 September 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE COULSONMRS JUSTICE MAYMR JUSTICE PEPPERALL
Between
REXCrownV
Between
KHALED AHMED__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MS F CLEGG appeared for Applicant._________JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]This is a renewed application for leave to appeal sentence following refusal by the Single Judge. On 7 May 2024, in the Crown Court at Southwark, the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to supply Class B drugs and one count of possession of Class B drugs. Subsequently on 12 August 2024, he was convicted after a trial of a single count of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. On 13 September 2024, the applicant was sentenced to a total of 10 years' imprisonment, comprising 10 years for the conspiracy to supply Class A drugs with concurrent sentences of 3 years and 9 months on each of the offences to which he had earlier pleaded guilty. The facts of the offending[2]The detailed facts are set out fully in the Criminal Appeal Office note. It is unnecessary to repeat them all here. Briefly, the applicant was involved in organised criminal networks supplying a variety of Class A and Class B drugs, mostly cannabis (Class B) with latterly also some Class A in the form of psilocybin (also known as "magic mushrooms") contained in chocolate bars. The networks operated by using two dedicated mobile phone lines, one of which was attributed to the applicant. The applicant acquired significant quantities of drugs including, in respect of the Class A drugs, from a co-defendant, Talal. The applicant passed the drugs on to drivers working under his or his partner's direction for onward distribution. The younger co-defendant, Talal, (aged 26 at the time) pleaded guilty to one count of supplying Class A drugs and one of conspiracy to supply Class B cannabis. He received a sentence of 2 years suspended for 2 years. Sentence[3]The applicant was aged 32 at sentence. He had eight convictions for 10 offences spanning the period from 2009 to 2012. His earlier offences were for theft, sexual assault and dwelling house burglary. He received a conditional discharge in 2009 and a fine in 2010 for possessing Class B drugs. In 2011 he was sentenced to a community order for dwelling house burglary and in 2012, he was sentenced to 12 months in a young offender institution for dwelling-house burglary. His most recent offence was for criminal damage, for which he received a community order in 2012.[4]The Judge accepted the prosecution submission that a person in the position of the applicant obtaining significant quantities of drugs and directing drivers where to take them was in a leading role in both conspiracies. He noted that it was impossible to arrive at any precise determination of the quantities of drugs which had been supplied. Accordingly, he selected category 3 of the relevant Sentencing Council Guideline as the appropriate indicator, since the drugs were for onward street dealing. He noted however that this was "charitable" as the inference from the evidence was that the applicant had been dealing in large quantities, at least of Class B, for over a year.[5]Category 3, leading role for the supply of Class A, has a starting point of 8½ years with a range of up to 10 year. Referring to the aggravating factors of his previous criminality and the other counts in respect of which concurrent sentences were to be passed, the Judge passed a sentence of 10 years. It is to be noted that Mohamed Ahmad, a co-defendant in the same position as the applicant, holding and running a drug line phone, obtaining and directing onward dealing, received a sentence, after discount for plea, of 7 years 6 months, which is the equivalent to a 10-year sentence after trial. Grounds of Appeal[6]In written grounds, which she has helpfully expanded before us today, Ms Clegg submits that the judge wrongly attributed a leading role to the applicant in relation to count 1 (the Class A conspiracy) and accordingly adopted too high a starting point in the guideline. She also relies on disparity with the applicant's co-defendant Talal, although she makes that as a subsidiary submission. Her principal point is that on the evidence, all the drivers whose operations had been organised by the applicant had handled simply Class B drugs; the (lesser) quantities and the (shorter) length of time over which he had been concerned with the category A psilocybin chocolate bars precluded the judge from arriving at a leading role in respect of the Class A conspiracy. There was a distinction, Ms Clegg submitted, between the applicant’s role in relation to the Class B conspiracy and his role in relation to the Class A conspiracy. Conclusion[7]In dismissing the application for permission the Single

Judge observed as follows:

"As to [attribution of leading role], the Judge was well-placed to assess your role on the Class A count having presided over the trial in respect of that count. He considered that you ran a drug line at the top of the chain, acquiring significant commercial quantities of cannabis and psilocin [sic] from a number of different suppliers, selling the drugs through a network of drivers for substantial profits. The index offence therefore was properly categorised as Category 3, leading role, giving a starting point of 8 ½ years’ custody with a range of 6 ½ to 10 years. The Judge recognised that your previous convictions were old and mostly irrelevant to these offences, and that there was personal mitigation, but he was entitled to adjust upwards from the starting point to the top of the range to reflect your overall criminality taking into account the other drugs offences. The principle of totality was reflected in the concurrent sentences imposed for those other offences. As to [disparity], your co-defendant Talal, was just one of your suppliers and the Judge found that his role was at the lower end of significant. Further, he pleaded guilty to the offences, including conspiracy to supply psilocin, and therefore received credit for his guilty plea on the most serious offence."
[8]We agree and add only this. As we have indicated above, the co-defendant in the most similar position to the applicant, namely Mohamad Ahmad, received a sentence which, allowing for the guilty plea discount, was the same as that passed on the applicant. Moreover, even if, which we do not accept, the sentence passed on Talal was lenient, that cannot render this applicant's sentence excessive, where it was in accordance with the applicable Sentencing Council Guideline and where all relevant aggravating and mitigating matters have been taken into account as they were here. For these reasons the renewed application for permission is refused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk