Suspending Custody for Vulnerable Female Class A Drug Offenders: No Presumption for Immediate Imprisonment and Proper Weight to Rehabilitation Evidence

1) Introduction

R. v Beresford ([2025] EWCA Crim 1812) concerns the Court of Appeal’s intervention in a sentencing decision where a vulnerable woman, whose Class A drug supply offending was linked to addiction, trauma and domestic abuse, received an immediate custodial sentence of 22 months. The appeal did not challenge the length of the term; it challenged the immediacy of custody, arguing that the sentence should have been suspended under the Sentencing Council’s Overarching Guideline on the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences.

Parties: Rachel Beresford (appellant) appealed against sentence imposed at Derby Crown Court.
Key issues: (i) whether the judge adopted an incorrect approach suggesting a presumption of immediate custody; (ii) whether the judge gave insufficient weight to current evidence of rehabilitation and over-relied on historic non-compliance; (iii) whether gender-specific considerations relevant to female offenders were overlooked; and (iv) how the balancing exercise in the Overarching Guideline should be applied.

2) Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal held that making the 22-month term immediate was manifestly excessive. It substituted a suspended sentence:

  • 22 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months (from the date of sentence);
  • a 20-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement;
  • a 6-month Drug Rehabilitation Requirement;
  • 6 months of electronically monitored trail monitoring.

The Court emphasised that suspension is a case-specific balancing exercise, not a process in which an offender must “persuade” the court to suspend, and that current evidence of rehabilitation and the particular impacts of imprisonment on vulnerable female offenders required closer attention.

3) Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

R v Ali [2023] 2 Cr App R (S)

The Court reiterated that sentencing judges, when deciding whether to suspend custody, must have regard to the context of the very high prison population. This does not create a presumption against custody, but it is a relevant background factor when the Guideline indicates that suspension may be appropriate.

R v Bond [2024] EWCA Crim 406

Bond was cited as a “helpful summary” of the appellate approach: the Court of Appeal is generally slow to interfere with a sentencing judge’s evaluative decision on suspension where relevant factors have been weighed appropriately. The importance of Bond here is that it frames the Court’s intervention as exceptional and grounded in identifiable error(s), rather than mere difference of view.

R v Price [2023] EWCA Crim 1060

Quoted via Bond, Price supplies the controlling caution: suspension is not a “tick-box” or “counting” exercise—competing factors are “incommensurable” and the decision is a matter of experienced judgment. Appeals succeed only if the refusal to suspend is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The Court applied Price not to uphold deference, but to identify why this case crossed the intervention threshold: the sentencing remarks suggested a mischaracterisation of the exercise and insufficient engagement with central factors supporting suspension.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning turned on the correct application of the Overarching Guideline on the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences, specifically the table of factors relevant to suspending a custodial term.

(a) No presumption of immediate custody

The sentencing judge said he had to consider factors “to persuade me to allow me to suspend”. The Court held this was an incorrect characterisation because it implies a presumption in favour of immediate imprisonment. The Guideline requires a structured evaluative judgment, not an offender-led burden of persuasion.

(b) Female offender considerations and the realities of imprisonment

Although the specific guidance on sentencing female offenders within the Overarching Guideline took effect on 1 September 2025 (after this sentence), the Court stressed that gender-specific matters were still relevant and should have been taken into account when deciding whether custody must be immediate.

On the accepted basis and reports, the appellant’s offending was linked to:

  • trauma and vulnerability, including domestic abuse and an Osman warning;
  • long-standing Class A addiction and pressure connected to ongoing criminal enterprise;
  • loss of her child (taken into care and placed for adoption) and limited supportive networks;
  • risk that imprisonment would disrupt fragile, community-based recovery progress.

The Court treated the increased impact of custody on this appellant as a significant factor in the suspension analysis (not as a reason to reduce sentence length, which was not challenged).

(c) Rehabilitation: current evidence vs historic non-compliance

The sentencing judge relied on “poor compliance with court orders” and missed appointments to conclude rehabilitation prospects were uncertain. The Court found that this placed excessive weight on historic material and insufficient weight on up-to-date professional assessments:

  • the pre-sentence report assessed her as suitable for a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement and a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement;
  • probation noted her last court-ordered treatment was in 2014, when motivation was low, but that she now showed a high level of motivation;
  • recent drug tests were negative and she had made progress with support.

(d) Overstating “appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody”

The judge treated the combination of Class A supply and commission of similar offences while “released under investigation” as indicating immediate custody was necessary. The Court held that this approached the case as though there were a categorical rule requiring immediate imprisonment. The correct approach is always a case-specific balancing exercise under the Guideline.

(e) Post-offence delay and demonstrated stability

A salient contextual factor was the delay: the sentencing hearing took place over 22 months after the last charged offence. During that period, the appellant committed no further offences and produced evidence of negative drug tests—highly material to assessing current risk and the realism of community rehabilitation.

3.3 Impact

The decision reinforces several practical propositions for sentencing and appeals:

  • Language matters: sentencing remarks should not suggest a presumption for immediate custody; the court must articulate the balancing exercise demanded by the Overarching Guideline.
  • Rehabilitation evidence must be current: where professional reports identify a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, historic non-compliance cannot be treated as determinative without proper engagement with present circumstances.
  • Female offender realities are integral to immediacy decisions: even where guidance changes after sentence, the underlying considerations—vulnerability, domestic abuse, trauma, disruption of community support—may be central to whether “appropriate punishment” requires immediate custody.
  • Class A supply does not automatically mandate immediate custody: seriousness is crucial, but the Guideline demands an individualized evaluation, including where a suspended sentence with intensive requirements can meet punishment and rehabilitation aims.
  • System context is relevant: consistent with R v Ali [2023] 2 Cr App R (S), the high prison population remains a factor within the overall assessment.

4) Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Suspended sentence”: a prison sentence is imposed, but not activated immediately. The offender remains in the community subject to requirements; breach or reoffending can trigger custody.
  • “Manifestly excessive”: an appellate threshold meaning the decision falls outside the range of reasonable outcomes, not merely that the appeal court would have sentenced differently.
  • “Wrong in principle”: the sentencing approach involved an error of law or method (e.g., treating custody as presumptive, ignoring relevant guideline factors).
  • “Released under investigation”: the suspect is not charged but remains under investigation; committing further similar offences in that period is aggravating, but not automatically determinative of immediacy.
  • “Lesser role / Category 3 street dealing”: terms from the drug sentencing guideline used to set the starting point and range for sentence length; in this case, the length was accepted, but the question was whether it must be served immediately.
  • Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR): structured probation-led rehabilitative work (here, 20 days).
  • Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (DRR): court-ordered drug treatment and testing in the community (here, 6 months).
  • “Osman warning”: a police warning indicating a specific threat to an individual’s life (relevant to vulnerability and risk context).

5) Conclusion

R. v Beresford confirms that the decision to suspend custody is a structured, case-sensitive judgment under the Overarching Guideline—without any presumption for immediate imprisonment. Where credible, current evidence demonstrates a realistic prospect of community rehabilitation (especially for a vulnerable female offender whose offending is intertwined with addiction, trauma and domestic abuse), and where a robust package of requirements can be imposed, immediate custody may be manifestly excessive even for repeated Class A supply offending. The case therefore strengthens the expectation that sentencing courts must expressly and accurately perform the Guideline balancing exercise, properly weighing rehabilitation evidence and the differential impact of imprisonment.