R v Mohammed Qureshi & Anor

Unreasonable delay in prosecution may justify a sentencing reduction where it has detrimentally affected the offender. Rehabilitation achieved during the delay may provide separate mitigation. A reduction for charging delay is unlikely to reach 25 per cent, particularly for serious offences; that observation is not a fixed ceiling. Mitigation should be deducted before credit for a guilty plea.

Where an offender has received an earlier sentence, the court should first determine the appropriate sentence for the current offences. It then has a discretion to make a further allowance, considering all relevant circumstances and totality. The exercise involves more than reconstructing a hypothetical combined sentence and subtracting the earlier sentence.

Mohammed Qureshi and Zaryab Ali sought leave to appeal against concurrent sentences of 30 months’ imprisonment imposed at Manchester Crown Court on 20 July 2026. Qureshi had pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine and diamorphine with intent to supply. Ali had pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to supply and being concerned in supplying diamorphine. The offences occurred in September 2022, but the applicants were charged more than three years later. The prosecution accepted that the unexplained delay was unreasonable.

During that interval, Qureshi served seven months following partial activation of a suspended sentence for an earlier dangerous driving offence. Ali, who had been 18 and of good character when committing the present offences, committed further offences and received a sentence of five years and ten months in February 2025. He remained subject to that sentence when sentenced in the present proceedings.

The sentencing judge allowed reductions for guilty pleas, delay and personal mitigation. Qureshi sought a further reduction for his intervening imprisonment and rehabilitation. Ali argued that the judge had made insufficient allowance for totality, since the present offences could have been sentenced with his later offending.

1. Qureshi’s application for leave to appeal was refused. Ali was granted leave and his appeal succeeded. His concurrent sentences of 30 months’ imprisonment were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of 18 months on each count (paras [23], [26]–[27]).

2. Under the General Guideline: Overarching Principles, unreasonable delay since apprehension, attributable to no fault of the offender, could justify a reduction where it had caused a detrimental effect. The examples discussed in R v Barrett [2025] EWCA Crim 840 included psychological or physical harm and having to put one’s life on hold. Separately, R v Wilson (Billy-Joe) [2026] EWCA Crim 427 illustrated that lasting rehabilitation achieved during delay could provide significant mitigation, even without those forms of detriment (paras [14]–[17]).

3. The observation in R v Timpson [2023] EWCA Crim 453, that a reduction for charging delay was unlikely to reach 25 per cent, particularly for serious offences, informed the assessment of Qureshi’s sentence. His combined allowance for delay and other mitigation was already generous. Moreover, mitigating reductions should precede guilty plea credit. Reversing that order had produced a sentence of 30 months rather than 33 months, benefiting him (paras [10], [16], [18], [21]).

4. Qureshi’s intervening imprisonment warranted no further deduction. It resulted from a second breach of a suspended sentence order, and he had already benefited from only partial activation. Although a community order could replace a short or moderate custodial sentence, the judge’s decision to impose immediate imprisonment was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive (paras [22]–[23]).

5. Applying the approach in R v Green (Michael) [2019] EWCA Crim 196 and the Totality Guideline, the court should first determine the appropriate sentence for the current offences alone. It then had a discretion to allow for an earlier sentence, whether or not fully served. Relevant considerations included its recency, similarity between offences, temporal overlap and whether the cumulative punishment would offend totality. The exercise required consideration of all the circumstances rather than simple subtraction from a hypothetical combined sentence (paras [19]–[20]).

6. Ali’s offences were the earliest in the sequence, committed when he was 18 and of good character. All matters could and should have been sentenced together. A combined sentencing exercise would have involved either concurrency with an uplift for the earlier offending or a consecutive term below 30 months. Although knowledge that later offending occurred during investigation would have increased the earlier sentences, totality required reduction of the present sentences to 18 months (paras [24]–[27]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 1337 , applications for leave to appeal against sentence were considered following referral by the Registrar. Qureshi’s application was refused. Ali was granted leave and his concurrent sentences were reduced from 30 months to 18 months’ imprisonment.
• Manchester Crown Court: Following guilty pleas on 30 January 2026, Recorder Michael Blakey imposed concurrent sentences of 30 months’ imprisonment on each applicant on 20 July 2026.