Court of Appeal Upholds Sentence in R v Hamzah Ali Hameed Drug Offence Appeal

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1611
Judgment on


In the recent judgment of R v Hamzah Ali Hameed [2023] EWCA Crim 1611, the Court of Appeal delved into the appeal against sentence regarding drug offences. This article provides a meticulous analysis of the key legal topics entwined within the judgment, examining the rationale behind the court’s decision and the guiding principles that were applied.

Key Facts

Hamzah Ali Hameed, a 25-year-old appellant, was convicted for possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment by Mr Recorder Cooper at the Crown Court at Cambridge. This appeal arose due to concerns that the sentencing judge had misinterpreted the pre-sentence report, particularly on the seriousness of Hameed’s potential diagnosis of Huntington’s disease. The submission placed emphasis on the argument that the sentence ought to have been suspended, supported by the appellant’s lack of previous convictions, his troubled background including a serious assault, and potential medical issues.

The Court of Appeal, led by Sir Robin Spencer, considered several points of jurisprudence:

  1. Sentencing Guidelines: The court referred to the Sentencing Council guidelines which recommended a starting point of four and a half years custody for an offence of Class A drug supply in a “significant” role. The court recognised that the judge had accounted for all mitigating factors in significantly reducing the sentence from the starting point recommended.

  2. Suspended Sentences: The application of suspended sentences was key, with the appellant’s counsel arguing that the judge should have suspended the two-year sentence in light of the guidelines and personal mitigation factors. The relevant guidelines suggest that suspended sentences are appropriate where the sentence is two years or less, and suitable factors such as good character and strong personal mitigation are present. However, the gravity of the offence and the importance of punishment were deemed to necessitate immediate custody.

  3. Fresh Evidence and Post-sentence Events: The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence, including a letter from a GP and emails from the probation officer, to emphasize the potential diagnosis of Huntington’s disease. The court scrutinized their pertinence and the subsequent investigation by the probation service into the conduct of the officer who authored the emails.

  4. Case Law Reference: R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 was cited, informing the principles governing the imposition of suspended sentences. The court analyzed the relevancy of this case and concluded that the present case did not warrant a suspended sentence based on the cited case law.


Upon evaluation, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The sentence was affirmed as neither being wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The Court displayed confidence that the prison would ensure proper medical attention for the appellant once fully informed of his potential medical condition.


The case of R v Hamzah Ali Hameed is illustrative of instances where the severity of offences outweighs mitigating factors, such as character and personal history. It reflects the judiciary’s careful balance between the necessity of punishment for serious crimes and the compassionate consideration for an individual’s circumstances. The Court of Appeal’s refusal to suspend the sentence underscores the rigour applied to uphold the integrity of sentencing guidelines while ensuring just consideration to the appellant’s concerns. Legal professionals are reminded of the Court’s emphasis on the application of Sentencing Council guidelines, the restricted parameters for suspended sentences, and the circumspect assessment of fresh evidence in appeals against sentence.

Related Summaries