Atif Arif v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1195
R v Ahmed Sabbagh-Parry
16 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 227
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of running a large drug operation. He appealed, arguing the police were unfair and the judge made mistakes. The appeals court said the trial was mostly fair, but the sentence was too long, so they reduced it.
Key Facts
- •Ahmed Sabbagh-Parry was convicted of two counts of conspiring to supply class A drugs and one count of conspiring to supply class B drugs.
- •He was sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment (concurrent sentences on Counts 1 & 2, with a 5-year concurrent sentence on Count 3).
- •The case involved a lengthy and complex history, including previous trials and numerous pre-trial rulings.
- •The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including covert surveillance, ANPR data, telecommunications evidence, and evidence of lifestyle.
- •The defence argued that the evidence was circumstantial and wrongly interpreted, citing police bias and insufficient disclosure.
- •The applicant represented himself at the appeal hearing after dispensing with several legal teams.
- •Numerous disclosure disputes and challenges to the admission of evidence occurred during the trial.
Legal Principles
Admissibility of previous convictions in drug trafficking cases.
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, s.8, and case law on bad character evidence.
Standard for discharging a jury after the exclusion of evidence.
Case law on the impact of excluded evidence on the fairness of a trial.
Duty of the prosecution to comply with disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
Sentencing guidelines for drug trafficking offences, including considerations of the role played by the defendant and the quantity of drugs involved.
Sentencing Council guidelines for drug trafficking.
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
The court found no merit in any of the grounds of appeal, concluding that the trial was fair and the judge's rulings were correct. Disclosure obligations were met.
Appeal against sentence partially allowed.
While the court upheld the categorization of the offence and the leading role played by the applicant, the 19-year sentence was deemed manifestly excessive and reduced to 17 years (concurrent sentences on Counts 1 & 2).