Isaah Saheed v R

When sentencing offences arising from overlapping drug lines, the court may assess quantity from all reliable circumstantial evidence, including images, messages and evidence of profits. An expert concession as to what can be positively attributed to one line does not exhaust the available evidence, provided the prosecution proves the facts to the criminal standard. Evidence outside an indictment period may be used where closely connected in time and capable of casting light on offending within the period, while sentence remains confined to indicted conduct. The court should impose a proportionate overall sentence, avoiding double counting and applying totality. Disparity with co-defendants must be assessed in light of their respective roles and indictment periods. Youth and limited antecedents may be outweighed by serious, sustained and financially motivated offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty to three offences of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs. Two offences concerned the F line, supplying crack cocaine and heroin between January and June 2023. The third concerned the Oscar line, supplying cocaine between March and June 2023.

Following Newton hearings, the Crown Court at Birmingham sentenced the appellant to eight years and three months’ imprisonment. The judge concluded that the appellant had been dealing with approximately one kilogramme of drugs a month over six months and that his overall offending fell within the most serious category under the sentencing guideline.

The appeal challenged the assessment of drug quantities, the categorisation of harm, disparity with a co-defendant’s sentence, and the weight given to mitigation. The central issues were whether the judge had been entitled to assess the evidence globally and whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive or unjust.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of eight years and three months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive or unjust.
2. The agreed expert evidence established that two and a half kilogrammes of crack cocaine and heroin could be positively attributed to the F line. That concession did not constrain the sentencing judge’s assessment of the appellant’s overall offending. The judge was entitled to consider the images, messages, evidence of profits and other circumstantial material in the round, and to draw a real-world conclusion to the criminal standard, even though particular items could not be attributed precisely to one drug line.
3. The sentence remained confined to criminal activity within the relevant indictment periods. However, material outside an indictment period could be considered where it was closely connected in time and cast light on conduct within that period. The judge was entitled to rely on the July messages concerning Mudassar Khan while disregarding later material from September 2023.
4. The judge adopted a holistic and proportionate approach to totality. Even if each line were treated as falling within category 2, the F line involved quantities well above the category 2 starting point; the appellant had played a significant role, established a further line, continued the offending for about six months, and acted for substantial financial gain. A lead offence with a significant uplift for the additional offending would have been appropriate, subject to avoiding double counting. An overall sentence of 11 years before credit for plea was therefore not manifestly excessive. The pragmatic quarter reduction did not signify acceptance of the appellant’s basis of plea.
5. The disparity argument failed. Applying the principle in R v Fawcett and ors (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 158, comparison had to take account of the different roles and indictment periods. Mudassar Khan was sentenced only for a three-week period and could not properly be sentenced outside it. The judge had also considered the appellant’s youth, lack of relevant convictions, family obligations and delay, and was entitled to conclude that those matters were heavily outweighed by the seriousness of the offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: Following guilty pleas and Newton hearings, sentenced the appellant to eight years and three months’ imprisonment for three class A drug-supply offences.