R v Mohammed Sajad & Anor

In large-scale drug-importation sentencing, a starting point of 20 years or more may be appropriate where the operation is on the most serious and commercial scale and the quantity greatly exceeds category 1, subject to the offender’s role. A leading role may be established even where the offender acts for another, if he meaningfully facilitates importation and distribution, directs others and expects substantial gain.

Guilty plea credit follows a sliding scale. A plea about one month before trial may ordinarily attract 15 per cent. A judge may allow less than co-defendants where their conduct in a Newton hearing materially differs. A more generous credit to others does not itself show legal error. Totality must be assessed realistically, not by speculation about earlier charging.

The proceedings concerned two applications arising from a conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine. Mohammed Sajad pleaded guilty in October 2023 and Kulvir Singh Shergill pleaded guilty in April 2024. On 20 September 2024, the Crown Court at Birmingham sentenced Sajad to 16 years’ imprisonment and Shergill to 21 years and three months.

Shergill obtained leave to appeal on the credit given for his guilty plea and renewed his application concerning the 25-year starting point. Sajad sought renewed leave to challenge the classification of his role, the guilty plea credit and the effect of an earlier firearms sentence. The central issues were whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, whether the plea credits were legally justified, and whether totality required a different result.

Disposition. Shergill’s renewed application for leave on the starting-point ground was refused, his appeal on guilty plea credit was rejected, and Sajad’s renewed application for leave to appeal was refused.

1. Scale and role. The conspiracy involved 250 kilograms of cocaine, fifty times the category 1 quantity. The applicable guideline indicated that sentences of 20 years or more could be appropriate for operations on the most serious and commercial scale. Shergill was the senior figure at the United Kingdom end, had direct contact with importers and customers, organised deliveries and payment, directed others, and expected substantial financial gain. A 25-year starting point was therefore not arguably manifestly excessive (paras [40]–[46]).
2. Role classification. A leading role does not require the offender to buy or sell drugs for his own account. Meaningful facilitation of large-scale buying and selling, together with direction, oversight, distribution, collection of payment and financial expectation, was sufficient. Sajad’s active involvement in taking and processing consignments, communicating with conspirators and couriers, making deliveries and dealing with downstream customers justified his classification as significant rather than lesser role, and a sentence in the 20-year-plus bracket (paras [43]–[45], [54]–[57]).
3. Guilty plea credit. The sliding scale allowed 25 per cent at the plea and trial preparation hearing and 10 per cent at trial. A plea entered about one month before trial ordinarily justified 15 per cent. The continuing EncroChat admissibility discussions did not warrant a substantially higher credit. The difference between Shergill’s 15 per cent and the 20 per cent given to two co-defendants did not establish legal error or justify appellate intervention (paras [47]–[53]).
4. The court accepted that a sentencing judge could distinguish co-defendants by reference to a substantial movement in the quantity accepted during a Newton hearing. If that factor influenced the sentence, it should have been stated in the sentencing remarks. The court nevertheless held that the 15 per cent credit was justified even without relying on that factor (paras [49]–[51]).
5. Totality. It was unrealistic to speculate that the firearms and drug offences would have been charged and sentenced together when the drug involvement was discovered later and Sajad had not admitted it. An effective sentence of just over 23 years, whether achieved through consecutive sentences or a lead sentence reflecting overall criminality, was not shown to offend totality (paras [58]–[60]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 29 January 2026, the court refused Shergill’s renewed application for leave on the starting-point ground, rejected his appeal concerning guilty plea credit, and refused Sajad’s renewed application for leave: [2026] EWCA Crim 125.
• Crown Court at Birmingham — On 20 September 2024, Her Honour Judge Buckingham sentenced Sajad to 16 years’ imprisonment and Shergill to 21 years and three months for conspiracy to evade the prohibition on importing cocaine.