R v Umar Arshad [2025] EWCA Crim 1456

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 1456Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Friday, 5 September 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE COULSONMRS JUSTICE MAY DBEMR JUSTICE PEPPERALL
Between
REXCrownV
Between
UMAR ARSHAD__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MISS L TAI appeared for Appellant_________J U D G M E N T

LORD JUSTICE COULSON:

Introduction

[1]The appellant is now 27. On 26 June 2025 following conviction he was sentenced to a term of 15 months' imprisonment for one offence of possessing a controlled drug of class B with intent to supply. A separate count of possessing a controlled drug of class B attracted no separate penalty. He appeals against that sentence with leave of the single judge. The Facts of the Offending[2]The facts of the offending in this case are particularly unusual. The appellant had been on trial at Reading Crown Court with several other co-accused over June, July and August 2022. The appellant had been on bail, but many of his co-accused, including a man called Tuviah Thompson-Hordle had been remanded into custody. On 24 August 2022 the jury reached their verdicts and the appellant went into the dock. The appellant subsequently asked to use the toilet and had been allowed to do so. He went into a secure area behind the dock. Once the appellant had finished in the toilet he returned to his seat and the toilet was searched.[3]A cylinder, roughly 4 inches long, was found in the toilet paper dispenser. Inside that cylinder 47 grams of cannabis resin had been found wrapped in tobacco and clingfilm (count 1). The appellant was arrested and interviewed under caution and he denied knowledge of or possession of the cannabis. He was thereafter released under investigation.[4]Police officers later conducted a search of the appellant's home address where more cannabis and rolls of clingfilm had been found in a shed in the back garden (count 2). The appellant's DNA was later found on the inner-most layer of the clingfilm wrapping the cannabis which had been found at Reading Crown Court.[5]The appellant's mobile phone had been found to have been in contact with a mobile phone belonging to a man named Keilo Senior, who had been Tuviah Thompson-Hordle's cell mate at the time of the appellant's trial. In addition, the appellant had received two payments from Tuvia Thompson-Hordle's brother. It was clear from the messages sent by the appellant that he had expected to receive more than £500 for the drugs he left in the toilet. The appellant was arrested in relation to the offence and in interview he made no comment to questions asked by the police. As we have said, he was convicted after a trial. The Sentencing Exercise[6]The appellant was 27 at the time of sentence. He had four convictions for 10 offences spanning from 1 August 2018 to 10 January 2024. Those convictions included two drug offences.[7]The judge's sentencing remarks were very brief. He said:
"JUDGE DALY: Mr Arshad, would you stand, please. Mr Arshad, you were going to smuggle 47 grams of cannabis resin into prison. It is falling into category 3, significant role. You were going to get at least £500. It is aggravated because it was going into custody. It is not straightforward at all. There is little mitigation. I accept what was said about you in [the] letter. I accept that you have got your head together and have been working and doing well in the community, but I am afraid the sentence I impose is one of 15 months' imprisonment. I have considered whether or not that can be suspended, but in my judgment, the appropriate sentence can only be achieved by immediate custody in a case of this nature. And I do not at the moment find a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, and although there is some personal mitigation, I do not find it to be particularly strong personal mitigation. Therefore, the 15 months' imprisonment will be immediate, you will pay the victim surcharge on your release, there will be no separate penalty for simple possession of cannabis."
The Grounds of Appeal[8]The primary ground of appeal is that the judge erred in treating the supply of drugs into a custodial setting as a further aggravating factor because that was already a factor that had been taken into account in the categorisation of harm. The second criticism is that the judge erred in failing to find a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and therefore suspending the sentence. Discussion[9]In accordance with the sentencing guidelines, there is no debate that harm fell to be categorised in Category 3. That is because it involved the supply of drugs in a custodial institution. There is no dispute that the appellant played a significant role. Thus for this offence, the recommended starting point is one year's custody and a range of 26 weeks to three years' custody. We accept that this categorisation already includes supply in a prison context, so if the judge increased the sentence for that reason he was wrong to do so.[10]However, it seems clear to us that that was not what the judge said or meant to say. In our view one of the grossly aggravating factors here was that, quite separately from the supply of drugs into custody, the offence was committed in a court building at a time when the appellant was actually in the dock. In our view the decision to commit this offence in such a location portrays the utmost contempt for the rule of law. It was that additional factor that the judge was addressing.[11]There were other aggravating factors, including the appellant's previous convictions. So even taking the recommended starting point of one year, the aggravating factors would have taken it up to something like 20 months. There was some mitigation: personal mitigation, and the delay on which Miss Tai places some reliance this morning. But in those circumstances, even taking those factors into account, the 15-month term that was imposed was plainly open to the judge. It was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.[12]The second complaint is that the judge concluded that there was not a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and that the only proper sentence was one of immediate custody. We consider that that was a view to which the judge was entitled to come. In our view, given the circumstances of this offence and the appellant's decision to fight the case through to a verdict. notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence against him, we would conclude that only a term of immediate custody was justified. If a defendant wants to smuggle drugs into a court building, when hard-pressed dock officers are already overstretched but have to search toilets in consequence, then immediate custody is likely to be the inevitable outcome.[13]In those circumstances we reject the suggestion that the judge should have suspended this sentence. For all those reasons, this appeal against sentence 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 1JE15. Tel No: 020 7404 140016. Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk

Cited in 1 later judgment