EWCA Upholds Sentence in R v Adil Riaz Appeal, Emphasizing Principle of Totality and Reduction for Guilty Pleas

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1292
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of R v Adil Riaz is an appeal heard by the EWCA Criminal Court regarding the sentencing of the defendant, Adil Riaz. This appeal against sentence was considered after refusal by the single judge, focusing on whether the overall sentence had sufficient regard to the principle of totality and addressing arguments of double counting.

Key Facts

Adil Riaz, aged 33, pleaded guilty to various offences across three separate indictments. He was involved in an organised crime group operating in Sheffield, dealing in large quantities of cocaine, engaging in violent robbery, and being in possession of prohibited firearms and explosive substances. His offences also included driving matters. The sentencing by the Bristol Crown Court resulted in a total imprisonment of 24 years, with certain counts running concurrently and others consecutively, alongside a 14-year disqualification from driving.

The legal principles involved in this matter include:

  1. The Sentencing Guidelines: These play a crucial role in determining the level of culpability and the category of harm associated with specific offences.

  2. Principle of Totality: This principle requires that a sentence should reflect all the offending behavior and the cumulative effect should not result in an excessive punishment.

  3. Reduction for Guilty Plea: The court considered the timing of Riaz’s guilty pleas, which led to a reduction in his sentence.

  4. Mandatory Imposition Requirements: This relates to the mandatory disqualification from driving until an extended driving test is passed, as required by section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

  5. Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968: The provision disallows the appellate court from dealing with an appellant more severely than they were dealt with at the first instance.

  6. Custody Period and Disqualification Period Calculation: As discussed in R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 455, the calculation must consider the individual’s period of automatic release and any extensions based on the portion of the sentence served.

Outcomes

Despite the arguments presented, the appeal court refused the renewed application on the following grounds:

  1. The offending was of a particularly high order involving extremely serious crimes.

  2. The sentence for the conspiracy to supply Class A drugs was justified based on the quantities involved and the sophisticated nature of the operation.

  3. The consecutive period of imprisonment for the third indictment was found to be justified, and the reduction in the notional figure for counts 1 and 2 on the third indictment was sufficient for the principle of totality.

  4. A reduction of 25% for the guilty pleas was deemed fortunate for the appellant, given the timing.

The court made additional points that the judge’s sentencing remarks should be amended to correct any discrepancies, but the overall conviction and sentencing were found neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

Conclusion

The EWCA Criminal Court’s decision in R v Adil Riaz illustrates the careful calibration of sentencing in line with the Sentencing Guidelines, the principle of totality, and considerations for reductions due to guilty pleas—ensuring that the punishment fits the crime without being excessive. Specific disagreements concerning sentence calculation and the principle of totality were addressed, affirming the lower court’s decision. The case underlines the judiciary’s meticulous approach in interpreting guidelines and applying the correct principles in high-profile criminal cases.