Burton man who smuggled phones and drugs into prison has appeal dismissed

A Burton man who smuggled mobile phones and drugs into prison has been condemned by a top appeal court judge for his "evil" trade.

Rehan Akhtar, of Shobnall Street, was locked up for three years at Birmingham Crown Court on June 2 last year but did not believe his sentence was fair.

His appeal to get his sentence reduced has now been rejected.

The 30-year-old had admitted cannabis possession and three counts of conveying articles into HMP Garth in Lancashire.

A friend of Akhtar's had been transferred from HMP Birmingham to HMP Garth, Mr Justice Sweeney told London's Appeal Court yesterday, Wednesday, March 21.

Akhtar prepared two packages, containing tins, food stuffs and sauces, which he sent to the inmate on April 24 last year.

Secreted within the parcels were six miniature mobile phones, 54.3 grams of cannabis resin and 69.1 grams of the psychoactive substance, Spice.

When police searched Akhtar's home they found a small quantity of cannabis for his own personal use.

The judge who jailed him said sending illicit items into prison has a "profoundly damaging effect on good order, discipline and the general running of the establishment".

Lawyers for Akhtar argued his jail term was far too harsh and should be reduced.

Mr Justice Sweeney, sitting with two other judges, said the supply of drugs and drug substitutes within prisons is a "serious social evil".

"They are a currency of great value and instruments of power, extortion and oppression," added the judge.

Spice is "rife in prison, causing danger to members of staff and others who have to deal with those under its influence and, in some cases, the death of the prisoner", he added.

"The evil done by drugs and drug substitutes in prison is even worse than the evil they do in open society."

Akhtar's grounds of appeal were "misconceived", said the judge.

"This was a professional criminal enterprise which was clearly being run by him for profit," he said.

"The total sentence of three years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. This appeal is dismissed."