R v Nathaniel Armani [2026] EWCA Crim 322

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.[2026] EWCA Crim 322Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Wednesday, 11 February 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE HOLGATEMR JUSTICE HILLIARDHER HONOUR JUDGE MORELAND
Between
REXCrownV
Between
NATHANIEL ARMANI__________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)_________Mr. M. McAlinden appeared for Appellant. for The Crown were not represented.._________J U D G M E N T
[1]On 14 October 2023 the appellant pleaded guilty in the Cardiff Magistrates' Court under case 62CL0807123 to one offence of acquiring, using or possessing criminal property, contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. On 14 December 2023 the applicant pleaded guilty in the same court under case 62CL0936323 to one offence of concealing, disguising, converting or transferring criminal property, contrary to section 327 of the 2002 Act, a further offence of acquiring, using or possessing criminal property, contrary to section 329, and two offences of being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug, one relating to cocaine and the other to cannabis.[2]On 2 May 2025 in the Crown Court at Merthyr Tydfil, His Honour Judge Jenkins sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a total term of 15 years, made up as follows: 13 years 6 months' imprisonment for being concerned in the supply of cocaine; a concurrent term of 8 years for being concerned in the supply of cannabis; concurrent terms of 3 years for offences under section 327 and 329 of the 2002 Act, and a consecutive term of 18 months for the s.329 offence under case 62CL0807123. The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.[3]The facts may be summarised briefly. Case reference 62CL0807123[4]At about 4.15 p.m. on 12 October 2023 police officers saw the applicant travelling southbound on the M6 in an Audi A8 car. He stopped at Killington Lake services, where the officers spoke to him. He had two driving licences in different names in the name of Murat Tasci and Murta Tasci. The applicant told the officers that he had travelled to Scotland with a friend the previous day, which checks revealed to be untrue. When the police searched the car, they found a large green freezer bag in the front passenger footwell which contained £198,785 in Scottish and Bank of England notes. The applicant was also carrying £1,150 in cash. Case reference 62CL0936323[5]Following his arrest, the applicant's mobile telephone was seized and forensically examined. Messages showed that over a two-year period he was involved in the supply of cocaine and cannabis and was a trusted courier of drugs and cash for an organised crime group. The applicant couriered 10 kilograms of cocaine to an Albanian customer in London. He sent to the client a photograph showing that cocaine in two carrier bags. He also supplied a further kilogram of cocaine on 28 July 2023.[6]The applicant was also concerned in the supply of between 603 and 608 kilograms of cannabis. The wholesale value of the cannabis was between £1.93 million and £2.25 million. The wholesale value of the 11 kilograms of cocaine he supplied was between £253,000 and £352,000. There was also up to 116 kilograms of unspecified drugs. The appellant was involved in collecting between £1.6 million and £1.63 million in cash. The applicant hired cars to transport the drugs and money. Between November 2002 and September 2023 he hired at least 15 cars for this purpose.[7]The applicant was a trusted courier of drugs and cash on behalf of the user of a mobile telephone ending 2326. The persons for whom he worked had an extensive network of customers throughout England, Wales and Scotland. The drugs expert described the applicant's journeys as prolific. The applicant was likely to have been paid a fee for each trip, earning a significant profit.[8]In his two bases of plea the applicant accepted that he had worked as a courier, "for a prolonged period of time, mainly transporting cannabis and cash", but also 11 kilograms of cocaine, as agreed with the prosecution.[9]The applicant had three convictions for three offences, none of which were relevant to the sentencing for the index offences. No pre-sentence report was prepared. We consider that no such report was necessary for the hearing in the Crown Court or for the purposes of this application.[10]We have considered a report by Dr Matthew King, a consultant forensic psychiatrist. He concluded that the applicant meets seven criteria for a diagnosis of a moderate gambling disorder in the upper range. We have also read a letter from the applicant's solicitor and a prison progress report.[11]In his sentencing remarks the judge said that the applicant had pleaded guilty on the basis that the cannabis offence and the related offences under section 327 and 329 took place between November 2021 and October 2023. He had been working as a courier for a large-scale organised crime group, operating the length and breadth of the country. He was a prolific drug dealer, acting on a national scale. The Judge said that the applicant had played a significant role in the cocaine offence and the amount fell within category 1 harm. The category range was between 9 and 12 years, with a starting point of 10 years for an indicative amount of 5 kilograms. Here, the amount was more than double that figure. In relation to the cannabis offence, the applicant's role had again been significant and the category 1 range was 5 to 7 years, with a starting point of 5 years 6 months for an indicative amount of 200 kilograms, whereas the amount involved was far greater.[12]The Judge said that he very much took into account the mitigating factors, including the psychiatric report, and had the totality principle well in mind. He said that for the cocaine offence, the sentence after trial would have been 18 years, which he reduced by a credit of 25 per cent for the appellant's guilty plea. For the class B drugs, the sentence after a trial would have been 12 years, reduced to 8 years, and was imposed to run concurrently.[13]For the related offences under the 2002 Act, the sentence after trial was 4 years, reduced to 3 years for plea. In relation to the offence committed under section 329 on 12 October 2023, the Judge said the sentence after trial would have been 2 years, which he reduced to 18 months, to run consecutively to the sentence of 13 years 6 months for the cocaine offence.[14]On behalf of the applicant Mr McAlinden submits that the sentence was manifestly excessive for the following reasons: 1. The starting point of 18 years was too high; 2.The applicant was entitled to 33 per cent credit for his pleas in the magistrates' court; 3. Greater weight should have been given to the mitigating factors, including the applicant's lack of relevant previous convictions and his diagnosis of a gambling disorder; 4. The sentences should have all been ordered to run concurrently.[15]Refusing leave, the single

judge said this:

"1. The applicant had a trusted and significant role both in transferring drugs money and in the supply of cocaine (not less than 11 kilograms) and cannabis (not less than 600 kilograms). He was closely involved with an organised crime group for these purposes and his involvement was over a lengthy period. 2. I can see no error at all in the Judge's categorisation for sentencing guideline purposes (which of course had to be adapted to the sheer quantities of drugs and cash involved). Necessarily, the sentence had to respect principles of totality (as the Judge in terms acknowledged): but it also conversely had to extend to the totality of the actual offending. The sentences were not required to be concurrent in this respect and ultimately, what matters now iswhether a sentence of 15 years was arguably excessive. 3. Given the quantities involved and the scale of the operation in which the applicant had played his part, I can see no arguable error in the starting figures taken and such mitigation as there was,with the basis of plea, duly taken into account. 4. As for credit for plea, it is true that the applicant pleaded guilty in the magistrates' court, but as stated to the judge by the prosecution, that was on the basis of supply of 1 kilogram of cocaine (the prosecution was then arguing for 36 kilograms). Following an adjourned Newton hearing, the applicant accepted involvement in the supply of 11 kilograms of cocaine, which the prosecution then accepted. A discount of 25 per cent to reflect that scenario was a proper one. 5. I, therefore, refuse leave to appeal. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor excessive."
[16]We entirely agree with the single judge's reasons.[17]One of the applicant's main submissions is that it was not necessary or appropriate for the judge to increase the starting point from 10 years to 18 years to reflect the quantity of cocaine involved: 11 kilograms, as compared with the indicative amount of 5 kilograms. The figure should have been 12 or 13 years, rather than 18. That submission in the written advice betrayed a misunderstanding not only about what the judge did in this case, but also the totality principle.[18]In reality, the judge did not arrive at 18 years simply to reflect the amount of cocaine involved. First, that overall sentence included a consecutive sentence of 18 months for the section 329 offence committed on 12 October 2023. The applicant complains that the sentence should not have been made to run consecutively. Second, if the sentence had been concurrent, that would have aggravated whatever sentence was appropriate for the cocaine offence. Third, looking at the 2002 Act offences globally, the amount of money transported by the applicant would have been of the order of £1.8 million rather than £1.6 million. Bearing in mind the sustained nature of that offending over a long period of time, an overall sentence of 5 years before mitigation and credit for plea would have been well justified.[19]Fourth, the money laundering sentences, along with the concurrent sentence for the cannabis offence, required a substantial uplift in whatever term was appropriate for the cocaine offence taken by itself. We note the Judge said that the sentence for the cannabis offence would have been 12 years, which he then reduced to 8 years. No criticism is or could be made of that sentence. Accordingly, even after applying the totality principle, the overall sentence proportionate to the applicant's overall criminality would have been significantly in excess of 20 years before allowing for mitigation and credit for plea. After allowing for those factors, a sentence of 15 years for all of the applicant's offending was justified. It was not manifestly excessive.[20]When the Judge said in relation to the cocaine offence that he thought the sentence after trial would have been 18 years, it is plain that he must have had in mind the uplift appropriate for the concurrent sentences he was just about to impose in the next breath. Otherwise, the overall sentence would have been much greater than 15 years, once the necessary punishment for the additional offending was also taken into account. We doubt that the applicant or his counsel could have read the sentencing remarks of the Judge in the way that the written advice set out. This application comes perilously close to meriting a loss of time order.[21]For these reasons the renewed application for leave to 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 1JE22. Tel No: 020 7404 140023. Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk