R v Moss [2025] EWCA Crim 1252: Adjusting Drug Guideline Categories and Suspending Short Custodial Sentences for Rehabilitated Young Offenders

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v Moss [2025] EWCA Crim 1252, a sentencing appeal arising from substantial cannabis importation undertaken via the postal system. The case is significant for two main reasons:

It emphasises that when applying the Drug Offences Definitive Guideline for importation, judges must make an “appreciable reduction” in sentence where the drug quantity is significantly below the guideline’s indicative quantity for the relevant category, before turning to personal mitigation.
It confirms that even in serious drug importation cases, a short custodial term that falls within the two-year limit may properly be suspended where the offender is young at the time of offending and has demonstrably rehabilitated during a prolonged delay before sentence.

The appellant, a young woman with no relevant previous convictions, had allowed her home address to be used for repeated deliveries of cannabis posted from the United States. She pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to:

Fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on importation, contrary to s.170(2) Customs and Excise Management Act 1979; and
Possession of a Class B drug (cannabis), contrary to s.5(2) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Committed for sentence under s.14 of the Sentencing Act 2020, she received an immediate 27-month custodial sentence in the Crown Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed that sentence, substituted a lower sentence of 22 months, and suspended it for two years with a rehabilitation activity requirement.

The decision provides important guidance on:

How to calibrate sentences within guideline categories where drug quantities are below the indicative threshold;
How personal mitigation, delay and demonstrable reform should be weighed; and
When suspension is appropriate in serious drug importation cases.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence. Its core conclusions were:

Role and quantity: The judge was correct to treat the appellant as having a significant role and to aggregate the quantities in the 10 linked parcels, totalling 26 kg of cannabis (23 kg intercepted, 3 kg delivered).
Error in applying the guideline: The sentencing judge adopted the Category 2 significant role starting point (four years) but failed adequately to:
- Scale down for the fact that 26 kg was markedly below the 40 kg “indicative” quantity for Category 2; and
- Give proper effect to extensive mitigation (youth, lack of relevant previous convictions, delay, rehabilitation and remorse).
Correct sentence length: Taking proper account of both (a) the sub-indicative quantity and (b) personal mitigation, the Court held that the appropriate sentence after trial should not have exceeded 33 months, which after full one-third plea credit yielded a term of 22 months.
Suspension: As 22 months fell within the two-year ceiling for suspension, the Court considered the Imposition Guideline and concluded that, in light of the appellant’s youth at the time of the offences, proven rehabilitation, employment in the NHS, low risk of reoffending, and the 2½ months already spent in custody, the sentence should be suspended.
Order made: The 27-month sentence was quashed and replaced with:
- 22 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years; and
- A 30-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, as recommended in the pre-sentence report.
Procedural clarification: The Court also directed that the Crown Court record be corrected to reflect that this was a sending for sentence (s.14 Sentencing Act 2020), not a trial on a five-count indictment.

3. Factual and Procedural Background

3.1 The offending conduct

The offending centred on the repeated importation of cannabis by post from the United States to the appellant’s home address in Stevenage, using fictitious addressees (e.g. “Max Parkhouse”, “Peter Stevens”). Border Force intercepted:

8 kg of cannabis at East Midlands Airport (disguised as trainers);
7.34 kg of cannabis at Coventry International Airport (marked as “red velvet”);
A previous 5.8 kg seizure linked to the same address in June 2022; and
Other linked seizures totalling a proposed 26 kg, of which around 23 kg were intercepted.

When police searched the address, the appellant was alone at home. They found:

A small quantity of cannabis (3g) and paraphernalia;
A Parcel Force letter and Royal Mail “missed delivery” card linked to intercepted parcels; and
On her phone, WhatsApp and Snapchat messages discussing parcels of weed, concerns about parcels being stolen, references to thousands of pounds’ worth of cannabis, and screenshots of numerous USPS and Royal Mail tracking numbers.

The prosecution’s case, accepted for sentencing, was that the appellant knowingly allowed her home to be used as a delivery point for multiple consignments of cannabis in return for payment (she herself described being paid £250 for a parcel).

3.2 The co‑defendant, Julius James

James, a co-accused, was arrested later in a vehicle that smelt of cannabis. His iPhone revealed:

Messaging with upstream suppliers about tracking and risks of parcels being “grabbed” by authorities;
References to ordering more drugs and being told “Not best time to send”; and
Bulk messaging consistent with onward supply of cannabis at street level (prices per ounce etc.).

The total quantity of cannabis linked to James was about 36.41 kg, with 23 kg intercepted. Following a Newton hearing, he was sentenced on the basis of importing 15 kg and engaging in street-level supply.

The judge:

Assessed James as playing a leading role, with a six-year starting point under the guideline;
Applied 25% plea credit (plea at the PTPH); and
Nonetheless arrived at the same 27-month sentence as imposed on the appellant.

3.3 Crown Court sentencing of the appellant

The appellant, then aged 24, had a single previous conviction (a driving-with-excess-alcohol offence in 2021), which was unrelated to drugs. The sentencing judge:

Characterised the operation as “well organised, well executed”;
Assessed the total relevant quantity for sentencing as 26 kg of cannabis;
Took the case as Category 2 / significant role under the Drug Offences Guideline, starting from four years’ custody; and
Imposed 27 months’ imprisonment after allowing for mitigation and full plea discount.

Crucially, although the judge acknowledged that the indicative quantity for Category 2 was 40 kg, he did not clearly explain how he had “scaled back” from the Category 2 starting point to reflect that the appellant’s 26 kg was substantially below that marker.

3.4 Grounds of appeal

On appeal, counsel for the appellant (Miss Flanagan) argued that:

The judge misapplied the guideline by:
- Starting at the Category 2 significant role starting point of four years (48 months);
- Failing properly to adjust downwards to recognise the sub-indicative quantity (26 kg vs 40 kg); and
- Not adequately reflecting powerful mitigation (youth, good character, delay, rehabilitation, remorse).
Even if “significant role” was correct, the judge should have moved down within or even into the Category 3 range, given both the quantity and mitigation.
Parity: James, who had a more serious role (leading role, supply, obstruction of a constable, lesser plea credit) received the same sentence, which suggested that the appellant’s sentence was too high.
Given the guideline on suspension, the appellant should have received a sentence at a level that allowed suspension, since she ticked all the identified factors favouring a suspended sentence.

4. The Sentencing Framework Applied

4.1 Statutory basis and guidelines

The sentencing framework in Moss rests on several legal sources:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, s.170(2): creates the offence of fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on importation, covering smuggling of controlled drugs contrary to prohibitions under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Sentencing Act 2020, s.14: governs sending for sentence from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court after a guilty plea.
Sentencing Act 2020, s.60: requires courts to follow relevant Sentencing Council guidelines unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
Drug Offences Definitive Guideline (Sentencing Council): sets out:
- Quantity-based categories (Category 1–5) for cannabis importation;
- Role-based culpability (leading, significant, lesser); and
- Starting points and ranges for each combination.
Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Guideline: governs:

When an offence is “so serious” that only custody will do;
When custody can properly be suspended; and
Relevant factors such as rehabilitation prospects, personal mitigation and risk to the public.

4.2 Drug quantities and roles

For importation of cannabis (a Class B drug), the Drug Offences Guideline uses:

Indicative quantities (e.g. 40 kg for Category 2) as markers for seriousness within each category; and
Roles:
- Leading role – organising, directing, controlling the operation;
- Significant role – operational involvement, awareness of scale, financial gain but not top-tier control;
- Lesser role – limited function, lower understanding, often motivated by pressure or naivety.

The judge in the Crown Court placed the appellant at:

Category 2 (based on total weight of 26 kg, approaching the 40 kg indicative figure); and
Significant role (rejected the argument that she should be treated as lesser role).

The Court of Appeal agreed with the role assessment and with aggregating the total quantity, but criticised how the judge then used the 4-year starting point without proper downward adjustment for the sub-indicative quantity.

4.3 Guilty plea credit

The appellant pleaded guilty at the magistrates’ court, and so was entitled to the full one-third reduction under the Guilty Plea Guideline. The 27-month sentence imposed at first instance implied a post-trial sentence of about 41 months.

5. The Court of Appeal’s Legal Reasoning

5.1 Role and aggregation of quantities

The Court swiftly dealt with two threshold issues:

It upheld the judge’s conclusion that the appellant played a significant, not lesser, role. Despite her relative youth and the involvement of a more sophisticated co-defendant, she:
- Knowingly permitted her address to be used repeatedly;
- Understood the nature and value of the drugs (“this was meant to be full of weed”; reference to £5,000 being at risk); and
- Received payment for her participation.
It endorsed aggregation of the drugs from the 10 relevant parcels, reaching 26 kg for sentencing purposes. This reflects the standard approach of treating linked shipments in a single course of criminal conduct as a combined quantity for guideline categorisation.

On these points, the Crown Court’s approach was upheld as properly within the Drug Offences Guideline.

5.2 Inadequate use of the guideline starting point

The core criticism lay not in the categorisation itself, but in what the judge did after identifying the offence as Category 2 / significant role:

The judge acknowledged that the indicative quantity for Category 2 is 40 kg and that the appellant’s 26 kg required him to “scale back”.
However, his sentencing remarks were so “brisk” that it was unclear whether, or how far, he actually did so.
The Court of Appeal stressed that, given the statutory duty to follow guidelines, a sentencing judge must show clearly:
- How the starting point was adjusted to reflect quantity within the category; and
- How any personal mitigation was then applied.

On the Court’s analysis, a sentence of 27 months (equating to about 41 months after trial) suggested that there had been:

At most a minimal reduction (“considerably more than seven months” was required) from the 48-month starting point; and
Inadequate accommodation of substantial mitigation.

5.3 Requirement for an “appreciable reduction” for sub-indicative quantity

A key passage of the judgment is paragraph 20, where the Court states:

“In our view, there needed to be an appreciable reduction to allow for the amount of drugs being below the indicative amount for Category 2 before moving on to consider the appellant’s mitigation.”

This is the central doctrinal contribution of the case. It can be distilled into two propositions:

Indicative quantities are not rigid bands. If an offender’s drug quantity is well below the indicative figure for a category (here, 26 kg vs 40 kg), the court must step down meaningfully from the category starting point.
This adjustment for quantity is analytically prior to mitigation. Only once the “pure” seriousness of the offence (largely driven by quantity and role) has been calibrated should the judge then move on to reduce for youth, good character, delay, rehabilitation etc.

The Court noted that there were no aggravating factors identified that could justify moving up within the range. Combining the lower-than-indicative quantity with the appellant’s mitigation warranted a reduction “considerably more than seven months” from the 48-month starting point.

5.4 The role of mitigation: youth, delay and rehabilitation

The Court identified a range of mitigating factors that had been under-reflected:

Youth and maturity: The appellant was 21 at the time of the offending. The pre-sentence report described her as having “a deficit in maturity”. Youth is well recognised as reducing culpability and increasing prospects of reform.
Previous good character: Apart from a minor driving matter, she had no relevant prior convictions.
Employment and positive progress: She had worked in the NHS for four years with prospects of further training, evidencing stability and community contribution.
Delay and reform: There was a substantial delay between her full admissions on arrest and her sentence. During that period she had:
- Committed no further offences; and
- Demonstrated a sustained commitment to lawful, productive life.
Delay combined with demonstrable reform is recognised as powerful mitigation, especially where the offender was young at the time of the offence.
Remorse and steps to address offending: She expressed genuine remorse and had taken steps to distance herself from offending behaviour.

The Court concluded that these factors, properly applied, made a significant dent in the starting point once the quantity adjustment had been made.

5.5 Recalibration of the custodial term

Bringing these strands together, the Court arrived at its own assessment of the proper sentence:

Starting point: 48 months (four years) as per Category 2 / significant role in the guideline.
Downward adjustment for quantity and mitigation: Reduced to a maximum of 33 months after trial – i.e. a reduction of about 15 months from the starting point, encompassing:
- Appreciable reduction for 26 kg being significantly below 40 kg; and
- Strong personal mitigation with no aggravating features.
Plea discount: Applying the full one-third reduction for an early guilty plea yielded a final sentence of 22 months.

Thus the Court did not disturb the judge’s categorisation or role assessment but corrected the calibration of the sentence within that framework.

5.6 Decision to suspend the sentence

Having reduced the custodial term to 22 months, the Court was brought within the statutory and guideline framework that permits suspension for sentences of two years or less.

Applying the Imposition Guideline, the Court accepted that:

The appellant had a strong prospect of rehabilitation (proven by her post-offence conduct);
She enjoyed strong personal mitigation; and
She was assessed as low risk of reoffending and no danger to the public.

However, the Court reminded itself that drug importation on this scale is inherently serious, and that:

“Had this offending been the work of a mature adult then we would have had no hesitation in refusing to suspend the sentence…”

The factors tipping the balance in favour of suspension were:

The appellant’s youth at the time of the offences – she was at an age where immaturity and susceptibility to influence are recognised as reducing moral culpability.
Her clear and sustained reformation over several years, working in a public service role (NHS) with prospects of advancement.
The fact she had already served around 2½ months in custody, which provided a real and immediate punitive element.

In those circumstances, the Court found it just and appropriate to suspend the 22-month sentence for two years, coupled with a 30-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement.

6. Precedents and Authorities

This judgment, as transcribed, does not reference specific earlier Court of Appeal cases by name. Instead, its reasoning operates squarely within and upon:

The Drug Offences Definitive Guideline (for importation of cannabis), and
The Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Guideline.

These guidelines themselves derive their force from the Sentencing Act 2020, particularly s.60 (duty to follow guidelines). The Court’s analysis is also consistent with established sentencing principles developed in earlier appellate authorities, notably:

That guideline categories and starting points are starting positions, not rigid tariffs, and must be adjusted to the facts of the case (including where the drug quantity is significantly below the indicative threshold).
That clear, structured sentencing remarks are required so that both the parties and the public can understand how the guideline has been applied in an individual case.
That youth, delay, and demonstrable rehabilitation can justify imposing a suspended sentence where the custodial term is within the two-year limit, even for serious offences, provided that the interests of justice are served and public protection is not compromised.

Although no earlier case law is cited expressly in the judgment, Moss now itself becomes an important authority on how to use the indicative quantities within the Drug Offences Guideline and on the availability of suspension in serious drug importation cases involving reformed young offenders.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

7.1 Fraudulent evasion of a prohibition (CEMA s.170(2))

This offence is often colloquially described as “importation” or “smuggling”. In plain terms, a person commits the offence if they:

Know or suspect that certain goods (here, cannabis) are prohibited from being imported; and
Deliberately take steps to evade that prohibition (e.g., by mislabelling parcels, using false names, or concealing drugs in legitimate-looking consignments).

7.2 Sentencing “categories” and “roles”

In drug sentencing, two key dimensions determine the starting point:

Harm category (1–5) – largely driven by the quantity of drugs:
- Category 1: very large quantities;
- Category 2: large, but not the very largest, quantities (for cannabis, indicative 40 kg);
- Category 3/4/5: progressively smaller amounts.
Culpability role (leading / significant / lesser) – how central and informed the offender’s part was.

Combining these gives a matrix; each cell has a starting point (e.g. four years) and a sentencing range. Judges then adjust up or down within that range based on aggravating and mitigating factors.

7.3 “Indicative amounts” and why 40 kg matters

The guideline uses figures like 40 kg for Category 2 as an “indicative” amount – a reference point for a typical Category 2 case. It does not mean that:

Every case below 40 kg must be treated the same; or
26 kg is treated as if it were effectively 40 kg.

The Court in Moss insists that if the actual quantity is well below the indicative figure, there must be an “appreciable reduction” from the Category 2 starting point to recognise that.

7.4 “Starting point”, “range” and “discount for plea”

The process is:

Identify category and role → read across to the starting point.
Adjust within the range for aggravating/mitigating features, including quantity relative to the indicative amount.
Arrive at a provisional sentence after trial.
Apply the guilty plea discount (typically up to one-third for the earliest plea).

In Moss, the Court’s provisional post-trial sentence was 33 months, leading to a final sentence of 22 months after a one-third discount.

7.5 Newton hearing

A Newton hearing is a mini-hearing held after a guilty plea where prosecution and defence disagree about important facts that will affect sentence (e.g., quantity of drugs, role, level of involvement). The judge hears evidence and decides the factual basis for sentencing.

Here, such a hearing was held for the co-defendant James, resulting in a finding that he was responsible for importing 15 kg and supplying cannabis at street level.

7.6 Suspended sentences and Rehabilitation Activity Requirements

A suspended sentence means:

The court imposes a custodial term (e.g. 22 months);
But “suspends” its activation for a specified period (here, two years);
If the offender commits a further offence during that period, the court will usually activate the sentence.

A Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) is a community-based element attached to a suspended sentence (or community order). It:

Requires the offender to attend up to a set number of “activity days” (here, 30);
Gives probation services flexibility to deploy appropriate interventions (e.g. education, programmes, one-to-one work) tailored to addressing the causes of offending.

8. Impact and Significance

8.1 Calibration of sentences within guideline categories

The most immediate impact of Moss is on how courts (and advocates) handle cases where the drug quantity:

Falls within a particular harm category, but
Is significantly below that category’s indicative amount.

The judgment makes it harder for sentencing courts simply to:

Select a category based on total weight;
“Nod” to the fact it is below the indicative threshold; but
Impose a sentence only marginally below the category starting point.

Defence advocates can now point to R v Moss as authority for the proposition that:

Where quantity is appreciably below the indicative category amount, the sentence must be appreciably below the starting point, before mitigation is applied.

8.2 Transparency of sentencing remarks

The Court’s criticism of “brisk” sentencing remarks underscores the ongoing requirement for:

Clear articulation of how the guideline has been followed;
Explanation of:
- How quantity affected movement within the category;
- How mitigation and aggravation were weighed; and
- How the final figure was reached.

This promotes not only fairness to the individual offender but broader public confidence in the consistency and rationality of sentencing.

8.3 Suspension in serious drug cases

Moss does not herald an open season for suspended sentences in large-scale drug importation. The Court was careful to emphasise that:

For a mature adult Largescale importer, immediate custody would be the norm; and
It was the combination of youth, long delay and concrete evidence of reform that justified suspension here.

Nonetheless, the case is a notable example of the Court of Appeal converting a substantial immediate term to a suspended sentence in a serious drug importation case where:

The sentence was under two years after correction; and
Evidence of rehabilitation was compelling and long-standing.

Practically, it will be relied upon in submissions where:

The offender was young at the time of the offence;
There has been significant delay not attributable to the offender;
The offender has shown clear reform (especially through stable employment and lack of reoffending); and
The corrected sentence length falls at or below the two-year suspension threshold.

8.4 Parity with more culpable co‑defendants

While the Court did not directly re-sentence the co-defendant (who was not before it), the fact that he received the same 27-month sentence despite:

A more serious role (leading role and supply “onto the streets”); and
A lower plea discount;

inevitably underscored the disproportionate severity of the appellant’s sentence. The recalibration to 22 months thus also serves to restore a more rational parity between respective culpabilities within the same conspiracy.

8.5 Administrative accuracy: sending vs indictment

The Court’s brief direction to correct the Crown Court record (from a five-count indictment to a sending for sentence) underlines the importance of accurate procedural records. Though of limited substantive import here, it ensures that:

The legal history of the case is correctly documented;
There is no confusion about what charges were actually put and to what the appellant pleaded; and
Future references to the case (e.g. in criminal record checks or future proceedings) reflect the true procedural posture.

9. Conclusion

R v Moss [2025] EWCA Crim 1252 is an important sentencing decision in the context of cannabis importation and, more generally, the structured application of guidelines under the Sentencing Act 2020. Its key contributions may be summarised as follows:

Quantity must meaningfully affect sentence within guideline categories: Where the total quantity is appreciably below the category’s indicative amount (26 kg vs 40 kg), courts must impose an appreciable reduction from the starting point even before considering personal mitigation.
Mitigation must be properly weighed: Youth, previous good character, long delay, demonstrable rehabilitation and remorse collectively have real bite and can substantially reduce a sentence that would otherwise flow from the guideline matrix.
Suspension in serious drug cases remains exceptional but available: For young offenders with strong evidence of reform and a low risk of reoffending, a serious drug importation sentence that falls within two years may be justly suspended, particularly where the offender has already experienced custody.
Sentencing remarks must demonstrate structured reasoning: Brisk or opaque references to scaling back the starting point are insufficient; the steps from guideline to final sentence must be traceable and rational.
Procedural accuracy matters: Even apparently technical points, such as correcting records to show a sending for sentence rather than indictment, form part of ensuring legality and transparency in the criminal process.

In future drug sentencing appeals, Moss will serve as a valuable authority for defendants challenging sentences that too rigidly treat guideline indicative quantities as fixed benchmarks, and for those seeking suspension where youth and rehabilitation strongly suggest that a second chance can safely and justly be given.