Imran Budhia v R [2025] EWCA Crim 818

[2025] EWCA Crim 818Case No 202404226 A3
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
Venue ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LEEDS
His Honour Judge Singh
T20247004
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 1 July 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMR JUSTICE CHOUDHURYHIS HONOUR JUDGE ST. JOHN-STEVENS
Between
IMRAN BUDHIAAppellantREXRespondent
Jennifer Brenton (instructed by Mary Monson Solicitors) for AppellantCPS for RespondentHearing Hearing date: 13 June 2025
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 1 July 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives..............................
[1]On 12 March 2024 in the Crown Court at Leeds the Appellant (then aged 36) pleaded guilty to the offences of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs (Count 1) and Conspiracy to Transfer Criminal Property (Count 2). On 30 October 2024 the Appellant (then aged 37) was sentenced by HHJ Rachim Singh to 13 years 6 months’ imprisonment on Count 1 and no separate penalty on Count 2. He now appeals against that sentence with the leave of the Single Judge.[2]The Appellant’s co accused in the conspiracy included Umar Mahmood (aged 39) and Jake McGoldrick (aged 35). Mahmood also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply class A drugs and was sentenced (also by HHJ Singh) on 6 August 2024 to 13 Years and 6 months’ imprisonment. By August 2024 Mahmood was already serving a sentence of 12 years, imposed in June 2022, also for conspiracy to supply class A drugs. The facts underlying that offence fell within and formed part of the overall conspiracy for which Mahmood fell to be sentenced in August 2024. It had been the Judge’s intention that the sentence that Mahmood had been serving be extended by 18 months to take account of the additional criminality reflected in the latest indictment. When it was pointed out that it was not possible to backdate the start of the sentence to the start date of a previously imposed sentence, the Judge amended the sentence of 13 ½ years’ under the slip rule to one of 18 months’ to run consecutively to the 12 years’ being served.[3]McGoldrick had also pleaded guilty to Count 1 and was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment consecutive to a sentence of 8 years and 3 months’ already being served. He obtained leave to appeal against the sentence of 3 years’. However, the full court dismissed that appeal on 20 February 2025: R v McGoldrick [2025] EWCA Crim 301.

Factual Background

[4]The period of the conspiracy in this case was from March to November 2020. However, given that the principal argument on appeal is that of disparity with the sentence for Mahmood, it is necessary to say something of his background and his antecedents prior to the period of the conspiracy.[5]At the time of his latest sentence, Mahmood had 15 convictions for 20 offences. Most of these were for relatively minor offences. However, in May 2017, he was sentenced to 64 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. Then, in June 2018, he was sentenced to a consecutive term of 5 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy relating to firearms offences outside the jurisdiction. It follows that Mahmood was still in custody during the period of the present conspiracy.[6]As we have said, in June 2022, Mahmood was sentenced to a total of 12 years’ imprisonment, again to run consecutively, for the offences of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and of possessing cocaine with intent to supply; and that sentence was in respect of part of the conspiracy covered by the latest indictment. Specifically, it related to the events of 23 September 2020, on which date a 2kg consignment of drugs was delivered to McGoldrick and his brother in Leicester. This delivery had been orchestrated by Mahmood in communication with McGoldrick. A further 2kg, destined for another customer elsewhere, was seized from the boot of another co-accused’s vehicle when it was stopped by the police in Leicester. The drugs seized all had a purity of 85 or 86%. At the home address of another co-accused, the police found a further 14kg of “import strength” cocaine, along with another kilogram of heavily adulterated or diluted cocaine in various quantities, and 771g of powdered adulterant.[7]At all times covered by the period on the latest indictment, Mahmood was a serving prisoner. When he was arrested, having already been involved in supplying controlled drugs, the Appellant willingly and voluntarily stepped into his shoes. The Appellant operated outside the custodial environment running a wholesale drug supply business at operational level from his home address in Bradford.[8]The Appellant was a user of an EncroChat phone. His username, or handle, was ‘honorabletonic’, and he was in contact with people who were further up the chain of supply, potentially at, or close to, the point of importation, particularly two unidentified EncroChat users with the handles ‘intolerantlord’ and ‘happyshopper’; and also with those acting as large-scale cash handlers or money launderers with the handles ‘cheeseherder’ and ‘salesservices’. The Appellant used the EncroChat platform to communicate with a number of customers at a wholesale level.[9]Messages found on the Appellant’s EncroChat device involved discussions about press plates of the sort that would be used in conjunction with a hydraulic press in order to produce compressed blocks of adulterated Class A drugs. The discussions included details of the dimensions of press plates available for use. Photographs were sent showing a press plate and a frame which the Appellant had access to or that was in his possession.[10]The messages also referred to conversations that the Appellant and ‘intolerantlord’ had independently of each other with Mahmood directing things from prison. They discussed the ongoing supply of controlled drugs and access to adulterant, frequently referred to as ‘mix’. They discussed methods of transporting large quantities of drugs. At the time of the conspiracy, the country was in lockdown due to Covid, meaning that movements for most individuals were heavily curtailed and also closely monitored by the police and so there was discussion about the potential use of an ambulance to transport drugs.[11]Conversations also referred to the receipt and collection of a consignment of 30 kilograms of cocaine from someone higher up the supply chain – ‘happyshopper’. That was just one consignment, but it indicates the scale of the quantities that were being sourced by the Appellant.[12]In terms of sums of money that were exchanged for drugs which had been supplied by the Appellant and Mahmood, there were references to being able to pay a bill of £450,000 in two instalments of £150,000 and £300,000. Messages referred to deliveries of quantities of cash to those working as bankers or money launderers, £200,000 to be sent to ‘salesservice’ and £300,000 to ‘cheeseherder’. At one point the Appellant referred to having only one driver available at that time and to that person not being able to safely hide as much as £500,000 cash in the back of his vehicle.[13]Messages between the Appellant and ‘intolerantlord’ over the course of a one-week period, from 4 to 11 June, referred to the transfer of sums totalling just over £1 million.[14]The scale of the conspiracy was vast, involving well in excess of 100 kg of cocaine and with many outposts across the country. The Appellant’s customers, who were sold multiple kilograms of cocaine, were in Birmingham, Coventry, Lincoln, South Shields, Nottingham, Leicester, Burton-upon-Trent, Mansfield and Peterborough.[15]The Appellant had a close relationship with Mahmood and his family and was seen attending at Mahmood’s home address on a number of occasions. There were conversations between them during which reference was made to the purchase of a new BMW X5 for Mahmood’s wife.[16]The Appellant was eventually arrested in November 2023.

Sentence – Mahmood

[17]Mahmood and the Appellant were to be sentenced together on 6 August 2024. However, due to a difficulty with the Appellant’s Counsel on that day, his sentence was adjourned to a later date and the Judge proceeded to sentence Mahmood first.[18]The Judge said that the matters for which Mahmood had been sentenced in June 2022 were “but a snapshot, a very small part of the overall conspiracy”. It involved a specific limb in Leicester. It was now apparent that Mahmood’s involvement was significantly more widespread and that together with the Appellant he was involved in flooding the country with kilograms of Class A drugs. This was a multi-million pound organisation of which he was the head.[19]The Judge noted that Mahmood had pleaded guilty at a very early opportunity, and said that he was entitled to 25 per cent credit for plea. The Judge had to take into consideration, when considering the overall sentence, that Mahmood was already serving a lengthy sentence, which the Judge calculated as being 22 years and 4 months. He then said:
“Taking a step back and looking at your overall offending, if the Judge, in relation to the Leicester limb, had been aware of all of the outstanding limbs and participation around the country, the appropriate sentence, in my view, would have been 24 years’ imprisonment. Of course, you are entitled to credit for your guilty plea. Reducing that by 25%, the sentence is then 18 months [sic – it was later clarified that the Judge meant 18 “years”] in custody. I reflect, however, the principle of totality and everything that I have read about you. I will reduce that sentence to reflect those two factors to one of 13 and a half years’ imprisonment. To reflect overall totality, I will make that sentence concurrent to the sentence that you are now serving. On my calculation, that will add an extra 18 months to the sentence that you are presently serving.”
[20]That sentence of 13 ½ years was, as set out above, subsequently amended to a sentence of 18 months to run consecutively to the sentences being served.

Sentence - The Appellant

[21]The Appellant’s sentencing hearing took place on 30 October 2024. There was no Pre-Sentence Report and the Single Judge did not direct that one be produced. We do not consider such a report to be necessary in the circumstances.[22]The Judge noted that the Appellant had no previous convictions. As to his role in the conspiracy, the Judge considered the Appellant was one of the leading players in this country. The judge said that he could see very little, if any, distinction between the Appellant and Mahmood. He stood “side by side” with him and played a leading role. The Appellant directed or organised buying and selling on a commercial scale. There were links with others higher up the chain, almost at importation level, close to the original source. There was an expectation of substantial financial advantage.[23]The indicative level for Category 1 harm was 5 kg. This operation was one of the most serious on a commercial scale, involving quantities of drugs significantly higher than the indicative level in Category 1. The Judge took a starting point of 20 years for the Appellant but, taking into account his mitigation and previous good character, that was reduced to 18 years. After 25% credit for plea, he was sentenced to 13 ½ years’ imprisonment with no separate penalty for the money laundering offence.

Grounds

[24]Ms Brenton, in concise and elegant submissions on behalf of the Appellant, contends that the sentence of 13 ½ years was manifestly excessive for one reason, namely parity - or rather the lack of disparity - with the sentence for Mahmood. Ms Brenton reminds us that the question for this Court when considering disparity of sentence was whether: “… right thinking members of the public, with full knowledge of all the relevant facts and circumstances learning of this sentence consider that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice”: R v Fawcett (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 158 at 161.[25]In the written grounds of appeal, it was submitted that that test is met, and that the Appellant should have received a lesser sentence than Mahmood for four reasons: i) Although both defendants fell within Cat A leading role, Mahmood “headed” the operation and “orchestrated” the conspiracy, whereas the Appellant acted as his trusted lieutenant. This difference in role ought to have carried more weight. ii) Mahmood was in prison, which is a seriously aggravating feature which did not apply to the Appellant; iii) Mahmood had numerous convictions including two for drugs supply that were clearly relevant and significantly aggravating; iv) By contrast, the Appellant was of good character.

Discussion

[26]A question often arising in appeals based on parity is whether the circumstances of the two offenders in question are truly comparable. There may well be factors relevant to one offender, which render their position materially different in determining the appropriate level of sentence, and which are not present for the other. In the present case, a key factor which the Judge had to bear in mind is that Mahmood was already serving a very substantial sentence for his role in part of the conspiracy (relating to the Leicester limb). Considerations of totality in Mahmood’s case were therefore quite distinct from those present in the Appellant’s case.[27]It is also right to note that a sentence for one defendant which might be considered, on the face of it, somewhat or even unduly lenient in the circumstances, is not necessarily cause to reduce an otherwise proportionate and appropriate sentence in respect of another. As pointed out by the Court in R vSaliuka [2014] EWCA Crim 1907 at [11], the passing of an unduly lenient sentence to achieve parity with another unduly lenient sentence would itself conflict with the “right-thinking member of the public test”.[28]It can thus be seen that the Appellant seeking to rely on the disparity ground faces a high bar.[29]Whilst Ms Brenton’s written grounds relied on a difference in the Appellant’s and Mahmood’s respective roles in the conspiracy, she did not pursue that point before us. She was right not to do so. It is not reasonably arguable that the difference in their respective roles in the conspiracy entitled the Appellant to be treated significantly differently from Mahmood. It is quite clear that the Appellant was, as the Judge stated, “an integral part of the conspiracy up there with Mahmood”. Whilst Mahmood was the head of the operation, none or very few of his directions from prison could be put into effect without the Appellant. Each was complementary to the other in leading this conspiracy and no right-thinking member of the public would regard their similar treatment as being a matter of significant or any concern on that ground.[30]As to the three remaining matters on which Ms Brenton does rely, namely, the fact that Mahmood was in prison at the time, his previous convictions and the Appellant’s good character, we can deal with these compendiously.[31]The starting point is that it cannot be said (and it is not contended) that the sentence of 13 ½ years’ for the Appellant was, when viewed in isolation, manifestly excessive. This was a large-scale commercial drugs enterprise and there can be no argument that either the starting point of 20 years’ adopted by the Judge or the eventual sentence of 13 ½ years’ was anything other than entirely commensurate with the degree of criminality involved. Appropriate reductions were made for the mitigating factors in his case (including, as expressly mentioned by the Judge, his good character) and for plea. In these circumstances, Ms Brenton is forced to argue that this is a case where the Court ought to interfere by reducing an otherwise appropriate sentence in order to achieve an appropriate differential between the Appellant and Mahmood. Attractively though Ms Brenton put her case, we are not persuaded that any such interference is warranted here.[32]The sentence imposed on Mahmood was not imposed in isolation but against the background of him serving an already lengthy sentence, including 12 years for his part in the Leicester limb of the conspiracy. That was a significant consideration that was not present in the Appellant’s case and was clearly a factor taken into account by the Judge. Moreover, the Court in Mahmood expressly considered the aggravating factors (including his antecedents and the fact that the offending was whilst in custody) and all the mitigating factors brought to the Court’s attention in applying the reduction that it did. Those matters are not identical in the Appellant’s case.[33]In conclusion, the apparent leniency afforded to Mahmood does not render the Appellant’s sentence either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. On the contrary, the sentence of 13 ½ years was entirely reasonable. The right-thinking member of the public would not be concerned that the Court declined the invitation to reduce that sentence merely because Mahmood’s sentence could have been longer.[34]For these reasons, and notwithstanding Ms Brenton’s submissions, which were persuasively advanced both orally and in writing, this appeal must be dismissed.