Atif Arif v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 1195
R v Hossein Tahmasebi
13 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 222
Court of Appeal
A man was sentenced to 10 years in prison for drug dealing and money laundering. He appealed, arguing the sentence was too long. The court said the sentence was fair, considering the seriousness of the crimes. They also noted a small mistake where a small fee wasn't added to his sentence but said they couldn't fix it.
Key Facts
- •Hossein Tahmasebi convicted of converting criminal property, being concerned in the use or control of criminal property, possession of criminal property, and possession of a class A drug with intent to supply.
- •Sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment (4 years for converting criminal property, concurrent 18-month sentences for the other property offences, and a consecutive 6-year sentence for drug offence).
- •228 days spent in French custody counted towards sentence.
- •Drugs and paraphernalia forfeited and destroyed.
- •Appeal concerned the totality of the sentence.
- •Appellant argued sentence was manifestly excessive due to consecutive sentences for criminal property offences.
- •Appellant's activities involved significant amounts of cash (£89,920 seized from car, £38,700 from flat), 1.689kg of crystal meth.
- •Appellant fled to the Netherlands after being released on bail, then was arrested in France and extradited.
- •Judge did not impose a statutory surcharge as required by section 42 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
Legal Principles
Totality principle in sentencing
R v Cooper, Park, Fletcher [2023] EWCA Crim 945
Sentencing guidelines for criminal property offences
Sentencing Council Guidelines
Mandatory statutory surcharge under section 42 of the Sentencing Act 2020
Sentencing Act 2020, section 42
Limitations on the Court of Appeal's power to correct sentencing errors under section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1978.
Criminal Appeal Act 1978, section 11(3)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found the 10-year sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the seriousness of the offences and the application of the totality principle. The separate nature of the drug offence and the sophisticated money laundering were emphasized.
Statutory surcharge not imposed, but noted as an error.
The Court of Appeal was unable to impose the surcharge due to section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1978 preventing the imposition of a harsher sentence than the one originally imposed.