Saheed v R. [2026] EWCA Crim 464 (16 April 2026)

Saheed v R. [2026] EWCA Crim 464 (16 April 2026)

The sentencing judge was entitled to take a holistic view of the evidence, including images and messages, to conclude the appellant supplied approximately a kilogram of class A drugs per month over six months, justifying a category 1 sentence; the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive or unjust given the appellant's significant role in overlapping conspiracies, and no improper disparity or failure to consider mitigation occurred.

Citation
[2026] EWCA Crim 464
Parties
Appellant: Isaah Saheed; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Drug Offences, Appeals, Newton Hearing, Mitigation, Totality Principle
Criminal Law Sentencing Drug Offences Appeals Newton Hearing Mitigation Totality Principle

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaah Saheed

Appellant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the quantity of drugs supplied as category 1 under the sentencing guideline
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the agreed quantities and mitigating factors
  3. 3 Whether there was unjustifiable disparity between sentences imposed on co-defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to take a holistic view of the evidence, including images and messages, to conclude the appellant supplied approximately a kilogram of class A drugs per month over six months, justifying a category 1 sentence; the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive or unjust given the appellant's significant role in overlapping conspiracies, and no improper disparity or failure to consider mitigation occurred.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed