R v Monsur Ali & Ors [2026] EWCA Crim 533

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 533Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Friday, 20 March 2026
Before
LADY JUSTICE MAY DBEMR JUSTICE PEPPERALLRECORDER OF NORWICHHER HONOUR JUDGE PLASCHKES(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)REXVMONSUR ALIMOHAMMED MOHSIN KHANMAHMUDAL HASSAN__________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 G GREEN KC appeared on behalf of the Appellant ALIMR J SCOBIE KC and MS M MIR appeared on behalf of Appellant KHANMR J WOOD and MR S GARDINER appeared on behalf of the Appellant HASSANMR J BROWN appeared on behalf of the CROWN_________A P P R O V E D J U D G M E N T
Between
Monsur Ali & OrsDefendantRCrown
[1]MR JUSTICE PEPPERALL: On 22 January 2024, in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, Her Honour Judge Canavan sentenced Monsur Ali, Mohammed Mohsin Khan and Mahmudul Hassan, together with fifteen other men, to substantial terms of imprisonment for serious drugs offences.a. Monsur Ali was sentenced to a total of 22 years' imprisonment, comprising 17 years in respect of the Babaco conspiracy and a consecutive sentence of 5 years in respect of the wholesale conspiracy. Both were conspiracies to supply class A drugs.b. Mohammed Mohsin Khan was sentenced to a total of 19 years 3 months' imprisonment, comprising 15 years 9 months for the Babaco conspiracy and a consecutive sentence of 3½ years for the wholesale conspiracy.c. Mahmudul Hassan was sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment in respect of the Babaco conspiracy. He was also sentenced to a concurrent term of 3½ years in respect of the Chung conspiracy to supply class B drugs.[2]Ali, Khan and Hassan now appeal against sentence with leave of the full court. THE FACTS[3]Analysis of phones seized by the police revealed the existence of a substantial drug dealing operation referred to in these proceedings as the Babaco conspiracy. The conspiracy was a well-run business in which many kilograms of heroin, cocaine and cannabis were supplied in the Tower Hamlets area of London. The conspiracy entailed several drugs lines, running between them almost 24 hours a day and seven days a week. There was a clear hierarchy within the group. The top tier comprised six men and included these appellants. They were responsible for running the organisation. Below them, there was a group of managers who were responsible for organising the tier below them. Those at the lower end of the organised crime group drove around East London in second-hand cars posing as legitimate minicab drivers. In fact, their passengers were selling class A drugs at street level in response to calls to one of the group’s drugs lines.[4]The operation was well organised and run in a highly professional and commercial manner. At the end of each shift, street dealers sent a report, tantamount to a sales ledger, to those higher up in the chain with details of deals made, the proceeds of sales, the remaining stock held, the drugs supplied on credit, and the expenses incurred. Some conspirators were engaged in managing the stock of drugs and reloading the cars, others in sourcing, managing and ensuring a continuing supply of cars for use by the bogus minicab drivers, while yet others managed the money and the premises used for packaging up the drugs.[5]The judge sentenced on the conservative basis that 31.2 kilograms of class A drugs and over 40 kilograms of cannabis were supplied between February 2019 and February 2022. Indeed, the combined sales reports recorded the sale of 79,520 wraps of crack cocaine and 27,332 wraps of heroin, together with a further 3,326 wraps some of which were supplied at no cost.[6]Money was fed into various bank accounts. In addition, a large quantity of drugs and more than £200,000 in cash, designer clothes and expensive watches were recovered at various addresses.[7]Mr Ali and Mr Khan were also charged with a separate conspiracy to supply cocaine, crack cocaine and heroin on a wholesale basis to other drug dealers. They bought kilogram deals of cocaine and heroin which they then sold on to other dealers in smaller quantities. Some 27 kilograms of class A drugs were supplied on a wholesale basis between November 2021 and February 2022 generating additional revenue of £1.34 million.[8]Mr Hassan was also responsible for running the separate Chung line through which he sold large quantities of cannabis on a wholesale basis. The Chung conspiracy involved some 40 kilograms of cannabis. SENTENCE[9]The judge did not adjourn this case further for pre-sentence reports in respect of these appellants. She was plainly right not to do so. Long sentences of imprisonment were inevitable and such reports were, in our judgment, unnecessary.[10]In passing sentence, the judge first considered whether the Babaco conspiracy looked at as a whole fell outside the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council for the supply of class A drugs such that she should take a starting point in excess of 20 years. She observed that ordinarily such a starting point was taken in cases involving the wholesale importation of staggering quantities of class A drugs. She noted, however, that the sentence might also be available where street dealing is on such a scale, for such a period, affecting so many lives and for such a profit that the sentence is merited. She concluded that if there were to be a case of supply, as opposed to importation, where a starting point in excess of 20 years was justified, this was it.[11]The judge stressed the fact that this was an incredibly well-organised conspiracy run with what she described as almost military precision extending to nearly four years and involving at least 31 kilograms of class A drugs. She therefore concluded that the appropriate starting point for those at the top of the conspiracy, before considering the aggravating and mitigating features of the case and before giving any credit for plea, was 22 years.[12]The judge considered the wholesale conspiracy separately. She noted the quantity of class A drugs that were supplied on a wholesale basis over a period of three months. For this offending she referred to the guidelines which gave a starting point of 14 years for Category 1A offences of supplying class A drugs with a category range of 12 to 16 years. She then adjusted the starting point to 18 years to reflect the fact that the conspiracy involved 27 kilograms and not the 5 kilograms on which the guideline was based. Again, that was before considering the aggravating and mitigating features of the case and before credit for plea.[13]The judge then turned to consider the circumstances of each defendant in turn. Monsur Ali[14]She said that Monsur Ali (who is now 34) was at the very top of the Babaco conspiracy. He had been involved from at least late 2018 until his arrest in March 2022. He was also involved in all of the drugs lines, together with the wholesale supply. He was the most senior of those accused in the Babaco conspiracy and plainly played a leading role in both conspiracies. He had done so, she said, for the vast profits which were to be made. The judge found a number of aggravating features of Mr Ali’s case:a. First, Mr Ali's previous convictions and, in particular, his 2016 conviction for possession of class A drugs with intent to supply, for which he had been sentenced to 6½ years' imprisonment.b. Secondly, the fact that Mr Ali had set up and started running the Babaco conspiracy when on day release from that sentence. The judge observed that it was hard to imagine a more serious aggravating factor.c. Thirdly, the fact that he had been on licence in the first years of the indictment period.d. Fourthly, that he would have been aware that those lower in the hierarchy of the conspiracy were generally younger and more vulnerable.e. Fifthly, that on at least one occasion he had used a woman's flat to cut and store drugs where there was a child living and therefore exposed to risk.[15]Other than his previous convictions, the judge did not identify any further aggravating features of the wholesale conspiracy.[16]In terms of mitigation, the judge said that Mr Ali had not sought to minimise his role in either of the conspiracies or delayed his sentencing. She observed that the sentence would inevitably impact his wife and young child and that Mr Ali had made positive contributions to the community and used his time in prison well. She said that he was also entitled to some extra credit for, as his advocate had put it, not having "messed the court around".[17]From the credit allowed, it appears that the judge's notional sentence after trial was 23 years' imprisonment for the Babaco conspiracy. She said that 18 years was appropriate after trial for the wholesale conspiracy. She found that Mr Ali was entitled to credit of 25 per cent for his plea in respect of Babaco and one-third for his plea in respect of the wholesale conspiracy. The judge imposed consecutive sentences of imprisonment but said that it was necessary to make a substantial reduction to the sentence for the wholesale conspiracy to reflect the principle of totality. The judge's final sentence was therefore 22 years' imprisonment, comprising 17 years in respect of Babaco and a consecutive sentence of 5 years in respect of the wholesale conspiracy. Mohammed Mohsin Khan[18]Mohammed Mohsin Khan is now 33. The judge said that he was also at the top of the conspiracy with an involvement only marginally below that of Mr Ali. He was involved in all the drugs lines and set up the WhatsApp group. He had done so for the vast profits available. In his case the judge identified a number of aggravating features:a. First, his previous convictions, although the judge noted that he had no convictions for supplying drugs.b. Secondly, that he too became involved in running Babaco on day release from his prison cell.c. Thirdly, he was on licence for nearly all of the Babaco conspiracy.d. Fourthly, he too was aware of those lower in the hierarchy of the conspiracy being generally younger and vulnerable.e. Fifthly, he too used a mother's flat to cut and store drugs where a child was living and so exposed to risk.[19]Other than his previous convictions, the judge again did not identify any further aggravating features of the wholesale conspiracy.[20]The judge then identified a number of mitigating features. Mr Khan was marginally below Mr Ali in the conspiracy. He had not sought to minimise his role in either of the conspiracies or delay the sentencing. His father was sick. He too had made positive contributions to his community and used his time in prison well. He was also entitled to extra credit for not having "messed the court around".[21]The judge considered a report from Dr Halsey and accepted that Mr Khan was suffering symptoms of depression and anxiety. She observed that that was inevitable given his situation but that his mental health would not materially affect his ability to cope in prison.[22]The judge said that the appropriate sentences after trial were 21 years' imprisonment for the Babaco conspiracy and 18 years for the wholesale conspiracy. She found that he was entitled to credit of 25 per cent for his plea in respect of Babaco and one-third for his plea in respect of the wholesale conspiracy. The judge imposed consecutive sentences of imprisonment but again made a substantial reduction to reflect the principle of totality. The judge's final sentence was therefore 19 years 3 months' imprisonment, comprising 15 years 9 months in respect of Babaco and a consecutive sentence of 3½ years in respect of the wholesale conspiracy. Mahmudul Hassan[23]Mahmudul Hassan is now 30. He was also at the top of the conspiracy, only marginally below Mr Ali. The police became aware of Babaco because of the mobile phones recovered from his home. He was also involved in the Chung line which was used in the main for the wholesale supply of cannabis although on occasions it was used to supply class A drugs. The judge found that he was aware of the recruitment and management of younger street dealers, one of whom was as young as 17. This, she said, was done for the vast profits available. The judge found three aggravating features of his offending:a. First, he had relevant previous convictions for the supply of class B drugs.b. Secondly, he was aware that those lower in the hierarchy of the conspiracy were generally younger and more vulnerable.c. Thirdly, he too had at least on one occasion used a mother's flat to cut and store drugs where a child was living and thereby exposed to risk.[24]In terms of mitigation, the judge said that Mr Hassan was marginally below Mr Ali in the conspiracy. He had not sought to minimise his role in either the Babaco or Chung conspiracies or delay the sentencing. Imprisonment would impact his family who would become supported. He also made positive contributions to his community and used his time in prison well. He too was entitled to extra credit for not having "messed the court around".[25]The judge used her starting point of 22 years for Babaco which from her written sentencing remarks it appears she reduced to around 21 years after consideration of the aggravating and mitigating features of Mr Hassan's case. The judge found that Mr Hassan was entitled to 25 per cent credit for his guilty plea to Babaco and therefore imposed a sentence of 16 years' imprisonment.[26]The judge said that the Chung conspiracy was a category 2A offence of supplying class B drugs with a starting point of 6 years. After full credit for plea she imposed a concurrent term of 3½ years' imprisonment, making a total sentence of 16 years. THE APPEALS[27]By these appeals, all three appellants argue that the judge's starting point of 22 years for the Babaco conspiracy was too high. Garry Green KC (who appears for Mr Ali), James Scobie KC (who appears with Maryam Mir for Mr Khan) and James Wood KC (who appears with Sebastian Gardiner for Mr Hassan) argue that the supply in this case did not come within the "very substantial" range of 100 kilograms plus that often justifies a sentence of 20 years or more. Counsel drew direct comparisons with the quantities and sentences in the case of R v Sarasli & Selfo [2022] EWCA Crim 693 and R v Matthew Wraight and Mark Bannister [2021] EWCA Crim 1968. Mr Scobie also relies on R v Welsh [2014] EWCA Crim 1027 and R v Jhurry [2018] EWCA Crim 2799.[28]Mr Green observes that there was no evidence in this case of the use of encrypted devices or associated violence or firearms or exploitation and that a starting point could not be justified for Babaco in excess of 19 years. Mr Wood argues that the court must distinguish between street dealing conspiracies such as Babaco and those involved in the more sophisticated and organised supply of drugs at importation or wholesale levels. Likewise, Mr Scobie submitted that this case fell a long way short of the most serious cases of importation.[29]Whatever the appropriate starting point generally for a leading role in Babaco, Mr Wood argues that despite identifying Mr Khan, Mr Hassan, Sadek Rahman, Afruz Miah and Shamadul Islam as each having a leading role in Babaco marginally below that of Mr Ali, the judge imposed different sentences before credit for plea: 19 years for Mr Rahman, 18 years for Mr Miah and 17 years for Mr Islam against the 21 years in Mr Hassan's case. As well as that disparity, Mr Wood complains of the unjustified parity with the 21 years in Mr Khan's case. Mr Wood acknowledges that the judge was entitled to increase the sentence in Mr Hassan's case to reflect his further offending in respect of the Chung line but that such uplift should have been significantly less than that imposed on those also convicted of the wholesale conspiracy.[30]Mr Green and Mr Scobie also argue that the court either erred in imposing consecutive sentences or that the judge had insufficient regard to totality such that their final sentences were not just and proportionate and that the judge failed to make proper allowance for totality. Counsel argue that although the wholesale conspiracy was separately indicted, it charged further offending of the same type and over the same period such that consecutive sentences were, they submitted, wrong in principle.[31]Mr Scobie also relies on the agreed position that Mr Khan was specifically responsible for introducing a wholesale supplier to Mr Ali and to Mr Rahman who went on to supply 9 kilograms of drugs to the conspirators and, secondly, by breaking down one kilogram of cocaine from a larger wholesale quantity.[32]Relying on R v Sanghera [2016] EWCA Crim 94, Mr Green argues that the judge should have given further credit to reflect the fact that Mr Ali was the first to break ranks and plead guilty to the Babaco conspiracy. Mr Scobie took the same point on behalf of Mr Khan in his written submissions but realistically accepts in oral argument that it is not his best point.[33]Mr Green and Mr Scobie complain that insufficient allowance was made for the delay in this case. Mr Ali pleaded guilty to Babaco on 25 April 2022 while Mr Khan pleaded on 24 June 2022 and to the wholesale conspiracy on their first appearance in respect of that matter in the Crown Court in July 2023. While the judge heard the prosecution opening and mitigation on 21 November 2023, sentence was then further delayed until 22 January 2024 in order that all issues as to the basis of other offenders' guilty pleas could first be resolved.[34]Turning to personal mitigation:a. Mr Green challenges the appropriateness of the view that personal circumstances carry less weight in cases of significant drug supply. He particularly relies on the impact of the sentence on Mr Ali's wife, son and elderly mother.b. Mr Scobie argues that the judge made insufficient allowance for Mr Khan's deprived upbringing and mental health and for Dr Halsey's conclusions that his client was of low intelligence and susceptible to pressure. Mr Scobie also argues on behalf of Mr Khan that insufficient weight was attached to the impact of prison conditions.c. Mr Wood accepts that personal mitigation can play only a very limited role in such a case but presses Mr Hassan's personal mitigation which, he argues, should have had some greater recognition in the sentencing exercise.[35]James Brown KC, who appears for the prosecution together with Dickon Reid, submits that the judge properly conducted an evaluative exercise to identify the seriousness of the offending. He stresses the volume of drugs supplied and the level of organisation. He also observes that unusually this appeal involves appeals by criminals at the very top of the drugs conspiracy. Mr Brown rejects the idea that this was not a sophisticated conspiracy. While he acknowledges that EncroChat was not used, he observes that many phones seized could not be opened and that this prosecution was only possible because the police were able to access the data on Mr Hassan's phones. He points to the fact that there were four separate drugs lines operating over a period of around four years. Further, he observes that the sales reports in this case, involving over 100,000 individual deals of crack cocaine and heroin, were the basis of the lower end of the assessment of drugs supplied at 31.2 kilograms. Yet, he observes, those sales reports related to only two of the four drugs lines.[36]Again, as to the wholesale conspiracy, Mr Brown submits that the 27 kilograms supplied was a snapshot in time for a period of three months over which there was clear evidence of the drugs supplied but that the wider conspiracy had been running since early 2021.[37]Mr Brown submits that the judge was entitled to find that this was a case where sentences of 20 to 30 years were appropriate for those at the very top of a substantial street dealing operation. He acknowledges that the sentences were severe, but argues that the judge was entitled to mark the separate wholesale conspiracy with an appreciable separate consecutive sentence.[38]As to disparity, Mr Brown identifies a number of differences in the criminality of different offenders and submits that the judge made reasonable adjustments to distinguish the seriousness of each offenders' case. DISCUSSION Sentencing in cases that fall outside the guideline[39]The guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council for offences of supplying drugs categorise the harm largely by reference to the quantity of drugs supplied. Sentences for category 1 offences, being the most serious category, are based on the supply of five kilograms of heroin or cocaine. For an offender who takes a leading role in the supply of such quantities, the guidelines provide a starting point of 14 years' custody and a sentencing range of 12 to 16 years. The Sentencing Council recognises of course that there will be much more serious cases and adds the following guidance:
"Where the operation is on the most serious and commercial scale, involving a quantity of drugs significantly higher than category 1, sentences of 20 years and above may be appropriate depending on the offender's role."
[40]This appeal yet again requires the court to consider the proper application of that guidance and specifically the appropriateness of sentences of between 20 and 30 years' imprisonment for those who have a leading role in the supply of class A drugs on the most serious and commercial scale. In R v Hizam [2023] EWCA Crim 628, Holgate J helpfully summarised the following principles at paragraph 22, which he drew from R v Cuni [2018] EWCA Crim 600, R v Greenfield [2020] EWCA Crim 265 and Wraight and Bannister:
"(i) For offences falling within the 20 to 30-year range there is bound to be an element of bunching, as the scope to differentiate for amounts and roles is very compressed, with the result that sentences on different offenders will be nearer to each other than might otherwise be the case; (ii) When dealing with offenders within one of the categories in the definitive guideline it may be necessary for the judge to make a finding with some precision of the minimum quantity of drugs which the judge can be sure were supplied. But when sentencing for a quantity of drugs which is significantly higher than the guideline categories, the exercise becomes a more evaluative one in which the quantity of drug is only one relevant factor, albeit an important one. Sometimes a judge is able to determine with some precision what the quantity of drugs may safely be taken to be and sometimes not. (see Greenfield at [42]); (iii) 'In the case of large commercial operations such as this which fall outside and well above the guideline categories, the judge has to weigh up a variety of factors, including the quantity supplied as best he can determine it, but also the particular role of the offender in the conspiracy, how far up the supply chain he was, the geographical scope of the operation, the length of time for which it continued, the number of different drugs involved and the number of separate conspiracies in which the offender participated.' (see Greenfield at [43]); (iv) The court is not assisted by comparisons with sentences passed or substituted by the Court of Appeal in other cases; (v) It is an exercise of judgment for the sentencing judge to scale up the corresponding sentences for those at the bottom rung of leading role, along with significant and lesser roles, in such a way as reflects both the part played by the offender and his comparative significance to the offending as a whole; (vi) For such very serious offences matters of mitigation are less important."
[41]As Holgate J rightly observed, caution needs to be taken with the authorities. The observation in Jhurry, at [18], that the sentencing range for a leading role in a conspiracy to import a quantity substantially in excess of 100 kilograms of class A drugs is between 20 and 30 years does not directly assist with what the proper sentencing regime should be for a leading role in a very well-organised and long-running street operation supplying massive quantities of class A drugs, although admittedly significantly less than 100 kilograms.[42]Analysis of other decided cases focusing just on quantities of drugs supplied are not ultimately helpful. In any event, comparison made by counsel in this case with the sentences in Sarasli & Selfo are particularly unhelpful given that this court was there dealing with offenders with a significant rather than a leading role in a drugs conspiracy.[43]In Welsh, Sir Brian Leveson P, doubted, at [8], whether there was any principle that the most severe sentences should be reserved for importation cases and noted that the guidelines themselves draw no such distinction for leading and significant roles at category 1. He added, at [9]:
"It may be that the culpability at the very highest level is increased when the complexities of arranging importation are taken into account but we doubt whether leading and significant roles in the most structured, persistent and heaviest supply cases (of which this is an example) merit such a distinction. In any event, the definitive guideline identifies the circumstances in which leading, significant and lesser roles can be determined irrespective of the quantity of drug involved and the guideline is careful to identify the use to which indicative quantities can be put. As for weight itself, Hughes LJ in R v Boakye [2013] 1 Cr App R (S) 2, page 6, [2012] EWCA Crim 838 explained that the weights which determine the categories are not thresholds but indications of the "general region" of weight that goes into the relevant category: 'it is not exclusively an arithmetical process': see para. 39."
[44]We reject the submission that there is any bright line to be drawn between cases of importation, wholesale supply or street dealing. We acknowledge, however, the force of Mr Scobie's observation that importation cases usually involve very high purity before the drugs are cut with adulterants to produce a yet greater quantity. Ultimately what these cases call for is a careful analysis of the seriousness of the offending in the individual case. The quantities of drugs supplied will always be relevant. So too will be, among other factors of the individual case, the length of time over which the offending occurred and the sophistication or otherwise of the operation and the individual's role within the offending.[45]In our judgment, the Babaco conspiracy plainly involved the supply of cocaine and heroin on a serious and commercial scale. Drugs were supplied on the streets of Tower Hamlets over a period of about four years, through a number of drugs lines operating around the clock. The conspiracy was sophisticated and exceptionally well run as a business. Further, the quantity of drugs supplied was substantially in excess of the five kilograms on which category 1A of the guidelines is based. We have no hesitation in concluding that the judge was absolutely right to move outside the guidelines and that this was a case that fell squarely within the category where a sentence in excess of 20 years was appropriate for those who played a leading role in this conspiracy. The judge's own starting point was entirely appropriate for offending of this seriousness and there is no merit whatever in the argument that it was too high. The wholesale conspiracy[46]The wholesale conspiracy was a separate conspiracy involving the supply of wholesale quantities of class A drugs to other drugs lines. The judge sentenced on the basis that the wholesale conspiracy involved the supply of 27 kilograms over a period of three months. Again, the wholesale supply in such massive quantities of class A drugs plainly fell outside the guidelines.[47]In our judgment the judge was right to identify a starting point for a leading role in the wholesale conspiracy by carefully calibrated reference to the category range for a category 1A offence. There can be no complaint with the judge's identification of 18 years' imprisonment before consideration of the aggravating and mitigating features of individual cases.[48]Here the judge asked herself whether the overall criminality was reflected by concurrent sentences. While Mr Green criticises that approach, it seems to us that the judge was properly applying the guidance in the totality guideline that consecutive sentences are ordinarily appropriate where, even though the offences may be of the same or a similar kind, the overall criminality would not be sufficiently reflected by concurrent sentences. Further, we consider that the judge was entitled to pass consecutive sentences in respect of those offenders convicted in respect of both of these quite separate conspiracies. That said, of course the judge was then required to consider the overall seriousness of the offending and to temper the total sentence arrived at by passing consecutive terms of imprisonment in order to ensure that her final sentence was just and proportionate. The breaking ranks point[49]This is not the first occasion when this court has had to comment on arguments that additional credit should have been given to the first offender to break ranks in reliance on Sanghera. As Goose J explained in Jhurry, at [26], and as my Lady, May LJ, observed in the course of argument in this appeal, the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council for credit for plea makes no provision for yet further credit over and above the specified maximum credit allowed depending on the stage at which the plea is entered. Goose J noted that Bean LJ's own observation in Sanghera had been made in the circumstances of that appeal where the sentencing remarks did not make clear the credit allowed to each defendant. Further, Goose J added, at [27], that the Sentencing Council's then newly published guideline made clear that the maximum credit to be allowed is one-third and hoped that that would put paid to future submissions for a greater discount.[50]Of course, these appellants were allowed 25 per cent credit for Babaco and not the full one-third that they were afforded for their early pleas to the wholesale and Chung conspiracies. That, however, properly reflected when each man pleaded guilty to the relevant count on these indictments. Nevertheless, the observations made by Goose J hold good: the effect of inviting the court to increase credit for plea to one-third (being the maximum credit to be given to any offender for a plea under the guidelines) would be to deprive any other offender who might have pleaded guilty at an even earlier stage of the benefit of having done so. That would be wrong in principle and we therefore reject the grounds based on this argument. In any event, none of these appellants were actually the first conspirator to break ranks and plead guilty to Babaco.[51]Having identified those matters of principle, we turn then to the individual appeals. In doing so, we entirely agree with Mr Scobie that the real issue at the heart of this appeal is totality. Monsur Ali[52]For the reasons already explained, we reject the arguments at ground 1 that the Babaco starting point of 22 years was too high and at ground 3 that the judge was wrong to pass consecutive sentences. The central issue is of course not how the judge structured the sentence but her final sentence of 22 years' imprisonment.[53]Although the judge did not identify her notional sentence after trial, it can, as counsel rightly observed, readily be calculated by reference to the credit that she identified for plea. Doing so, it is apparent that the judge's sentence after trial in the case of Mr Ali was in the region of 30 years.[54]Mr Ali was the architect of these conspiracies. Accordingly, he was right at the very top of the hierarchy and, even within the context of these offenders who had to be sentenced for having a leading role, that set Mr Ali apart. Further, he fell to be sentenced for both Babaco and the wholesale conspiracy. Mr Ali's offending was also very seriously aggravated by the factors identified by the judge. The mitigation identified by the judge did not provide any substantial mitigation in respect of this very serious and sustained offending. We have no doubt whatever that the aggravating features of Mr Ali's case clearly outweighed the available mitigation.[55]From her starting point of 22 years we would therefore have expected the judge's notional sentence after trial in respect of the Babaco conspiracy alone to have been somewhat in excess of the 23 years implied by her sentence of 17 years after credit. We infer, however, that the judge also tempered that sentence to reflect the principle of totality.[56]Standing back and considering the overall seriousness of Mr Ali's offending across both conspiracies and the aggravating and mitigating features of his case, we conclude that the judge's notional sentence after trial of around 30 years was severe. We accept Mr Green's submissions that this conspiracy did not have some of the aggravating features of the importation of high purity drugs and the use of EncroChat devices. Had it not been for the very serious aggravating features of his setting up and running the Babaco conspiracy whilst on day release and then on licence from a sentence imposed for supplying drugs, 30 years might well have been too long. Taking into account, however, all of the aggravating and mitigating features of Mr Ali's case, we are not persuaded that such sentence was manifestly excessive for the overall offending on these indictments or that it failed to make sufficient allowance for the available mitigation. Mohammed Mohsin Khan[57]For the reasons already explained, we again reject the arguments at ground 1 that the Babaco starting point of 22 years was too high and at ground 2 that the judge was wrong to pass consecutive sentences. Again, the central issue is whether the final sentence of 19 years 3 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.[58]In Mr Khan's case it appears that the judge's notional sentence after trial was in the region of 26 years. The judge sentenced Mr Khan on the basis that while he was not at the very top of the Babaco conspiracy, he was very marginally below Mr Ali. Mr Khan's offending was also aggravated by the matters identified by the judge.[59]The judge took into account the personal mitigation. She accepted medical evidence that he was suffering from depression and anxiety, although she considered that to be inevitable given the serious situation in which he found himself. Importantly, she concluded that Mr Khan's mental health would not materially affect his ability to cope in prison. Further, she took into account prison conditions.[60]Again, we do not accept that this was strong personal mitigation in the face of this very serious and sustained offending. Nevertheless, the judge treated the mitigation as just outweighing the additional aggravating features of the Babaco conspiracy and then made a very substantial reduction in the consecutive term to be served for the wholesale conspiracy.[61]Standing back and considering the overall seriousness of Mr Khan's offending across both conspiracies and the aggravating and mitigating features of his case, we conclude that the judge's notional sentence after trial of around 26 years was again severe. We accept the argument, this time advanced by Mr Scobie, that this was less serious than cases involving importation of high purity drugs and EncroChat devices. This offending was, however, again seriously aggravated by Mr Khan's involvement in the Babaco conspiracy while on day release from custody and then on licence. We are not therefore persuaded that the judge's final sentence of 19 years 3 months' imprisonment after credit for Mr Khan's pleas was manifestly excessive or that it failed to make sufficient allowance for the personal mitigation. Mahmudul Hassan[62]For the reasons already explained, we reject the argument at ground 1 that the Babaco starting point of 22 years was too high. The judge sentenced Mr Hassan on the basis that he was at the top of the Babaco conspiracy only marginally below Mr Ali. Mr Hassan also fell to be sentenced for running the Chung line that suppled a substantial quantity of cannabis. The judge properly identified the aggravating and mitigating features of his case.[63]The judge's notional sentence after trial was 21 years but with 25 per cent credit the final sentence was 16 years' imprisonment. Again, we do not accept that this was strong personal mitigation in the face of this very serious and sustained offending. Nevertheless, the judge treated the mitigation as just outweighing the additional aggravating features of the Babaco case and then imposed a concurrent term in respect of the drug dealing.[64]Standing back and considering the overall seriousness of Mr Hassan's offending across both conspiracies and the aggravating and mitigating features of his case, we conclude that the judge's notional sentence after trial of 21 years was just and proportionate. In our judgment it made sufficient allowance for the personal mitigation in this case and for delay. Accordingly, we conclude that the judge's final sentence of 16 years' imprisonment after credit for Mr Hassan's pleas was not manifestly excessive.[65]There is, in our judgment, no merit in the disparity argument. This court will only entertain an appeal on the grounds of disparity in the event that right-thinking members of the public with knowledge of all the relevant facts and circumstances would consider that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice. In this case, we are satisfied that right-thinking members of the public would readily understand the reasons for the apparent disparity in sentencing these offenders:a. As to Sadek Rahman, he was also at the top of the Babaco conspiracy marginally below Monsur Ali. In 2021, Mr Rahman assumed day-to-day management of Babaco upon Mr Ali and Mr Khan becoming focused on the separate wholesale conspiracy. While Mr Rahman's sentence for Babaco was less than that imposed on Mr Hassan, the critical difference was that Mr Rahman was sentenced to a consecutive term of imprisonment for his involvement in the wholesale conspiracy while Mr Hassan was sentenced to a concurrent term for running the Chung line. Indeed, Mr Rahman was ultimately sentenced to a longer overall total sentence. Accordingly, we reject the argument that there was any unjustifiable disparity between his notional sentence after trial of 19 years for Babaco and that of 21 years for similar offending which also had to reflect the further offending in respect of the Chung line in the case of Mr Hassan.b. Shamadul Islam was also on a par with Mr Hassan at the top of the Babaco conspiracy. He was not, however, also convicted of any offence in respect of a second conspiracy and he did not have a previous conviction for drug dealing. There is no unjustifiable disparity between his notional sentence after trial of 17 years for Babaco and a sentence of 21 years for Mr Hassan's similar offending taking account also of the additional aggravating features and the further offending in running the Chung line.c. Afruz Miah was also on a par with Mr Hassan but only fell to be sentenced for the Babaco conspiracy. There is no merit, whatever, in the suggestion of any unjustifiable disparity in his notional sentence after trial of 18 years for Babaco and the sentence of 21 years also to reflect the Chung line in Mr Hassan's case.[66]The complaint made by reference to Mr Khan's sentence is subtly different. It is a complaint of unjustifiable parity in the Babaco sentence. The fundamental difference was, however, that Mr Khan was sentenced to a consecutive term on top of his Babaco sentence for his involvement in the wholesale conspiracy, whereas the judge imposed a concurrent term in Mr Hassan's case in respect of Chung. In any event, any bunching in sentences in these cases is, as the authorities make clear, inevitable and arguments about objectional parity are therefore somewhat difficult to sustain. CONCLUSIONS[67]For these reasons, we dismiss each of these appeals against sentence.[68]Before departing from this case, we should like to pay tribute to counsel for the quality of their submissions and to the judge for her meticulous approach to sentencing in this difficult case. We have only had to consider three cases in detail but she sentenced no fewer than 18 offenders for their various roles in these conspiracies in this particular sentencing exercise. In doing so, she wisely made general findings applicable to the various conspiracies but was in our judgment astute then to make individualised findings in respect of the involvement of each offender and to consider separately the aggravating and mitigating features of each offender's case.[69]In granting leave, Lavender J observed that the court might wish to give further guidance as to the proper application of the 20 to 30-year sentence to serious cases of street dealing. In fact, we consider that we have done no more than identify and apply existing principles to the facts of this case. If there is to be further guidance in this area we consider that that would best come from the Sentencing Council as and when it has time within its work schedule to revisit the guidelines for the supply of drugs. In so observing, we acknowledge, however, that experience has shown that it might not necessarily be appropriate simply to identify new starting points and category ranges based only on the quantity of drugs and that the broad evaluative exercise required in these serious cases may prove difficult to fit within the structure of guidelines. 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 1JE70. Tel No: 020 7404 140071. Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk