ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LEEDS
His Honour Judge Singh
T20247004
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY
and
HIS HONOUR JUDGE ST. JOHN-STEVENS
____________________
IMRAN BUDHIA |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
REX |
Respondent |
____________________
CPS for the Respondent
Hearing date: 13 June 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Choudhury:
Factual Background
Sentence – Mahmood
"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."
Sentence - The Appellant
Grounds
"… 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.
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