Isaah Saheed v R

Isaah Saheed v R

The sentencing judge was entitled to take a holistic approach to the evidence, including images and messages, and to conclude the appellant supplied approximately a kilogramme a month over six months, justifying category 1 harm. The sentence of 11 years (reduced for plea) was not manifestly excessive or unjust, and disparity with co-defendants was justified by differences in roles and indictment periods. Mitigation was properly considered but outweighed by the seriousness of the offending.

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, Class a Drugs, Drug Supply, Appeal Against Sentence, Newton Hearing, Sentencing Guideline Categorisation
Criminal Law Sentencing Class a Drugs Drug Supply Appeal Against Sentence Newton Hearing Sentencing Guideline Categorisation

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 5
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 appellant's offending as category 1 harm under the sentencing guidelines based on the quantities of drugs supplied
  2. 2 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or unjust
  3. 3 Whether there was unjustified disparity between the appellant's sentence and those of co-defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to take a holistic approach to the evidence, including images and messages, and to conclude the appellant supplied approximately a kilogramme a month over six months, justifying category 1 harm. The sentence of 11 years (reduced for plea) was not manifestly excessive or unjust, and disparity with co-defendants was justified by differences in roles and indictment periods. Mitigation was properly considered but outweighed by the seriousness of the offending.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against sentence is dismissed.