The Obligation to Adjourn for a Pre‑Sentence Report Before Refusing a Suspended Sentence in Borderline Custody Cases: Commentary on R v Jode [2025] EWCA Crim 1617

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v Jode [2025] EWCA Crim 1617, a case that clarifies when a sentencing judge must obtain a pre‑sentence report (PSR) and, crucially, when sentencing should be adjourned before refusing to suspend a custodial term.

The case sits at the intersection of four important elements of modern sentencing law:

the statutory threshold for custody under section 230 of the Sentencing Act 2020;
the duty to obtain and consider PSRs under section 30 of that Act;
the power to suspend sentences under section 277; and
the obligation under section 59 to follow Sentencing Council guidelines, here the 2025 Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences guideline.

The central issue was narrow but important: in a case where the judge had recognised that the decision whether to impose immediate custody or a suspended sentence was “borderline”, was it lawful to decide against suspension without a PSR and without adjourning to obtain mental health and alcohol assessments recommended by probation?

The Court of Appeal held that, in the particular circumstances, it was not. The judgment establishes a significant practical principle: where the suitability of suspension turns on rehabilitation prospects and compliance with community-based requirements, and the court lacks a PSR or relevant assessments, an adjournment will normally be required. It is not enough simply to infer poor prospects from limited failures to attend probation appointments.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

2.1 The Offending

The appellant, David Ian Jode, and the complainant, Nicola Niven, had previously worked together and remained on friendly terms. In March 2023, they met by chance while Ms Niven was out in Truro with friends. The group returned to the appellant’s flat; her two friends later left, leaving the appellant alone with the complainant.

The sequence of events, as summarised by Lord Justice Lewis, was as follows:

The appellant sat next to the victim and asked for a kiss. She permitted this but expressly indicated that “nothing’s going to happen”.
The appellant then stood up, took one of three imitation guns from the wall, pointed it at her face, and said: “Get the fuck out.”
When she questioned whether he was joking, he cocked the gun and insisted he was not.
He struck her in the face, causing pain and breaking her glasses.
He then apologised, saying he did not know why he had done it.

The victim went to hospital and the appellant was later arrested. Several imitation firearms were seized from his flat.

2.2 Sentencing at First Instance

On 12 September 2025 in the Crown Court at Truro, the appellant was sentenced for three offences:

Possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence – 18 months’ imprisonment.
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) – 8 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
Criminal damage – no separate penalty.

There was no challenge in the Court of Appeal to the length of these custodial terms. The only issue was whether the Crown Court judge erred in deciding that the sentence had to be served immediately rather than suspended.

As to suspension, the judge:

Recognised the case as “borderline” on the question whether only immediate custody was appropriate, but
Concluded that the appellant’s “prospects of rehabilitation… are pretty gloomy”, relying heavily on his failure to attend probation appointments on 1 and 5 September.

The judge reasoned that if the appellant could not manage to attend probation appointments, “the prospect of [him] complying with more involved community requirements is negligible”. On that basis he imposed immediate custody without suspending the sentence.

2.3 The Pre‑Sentence Report Issue at First Instance

The judge had ordered a pre‑sentence report after the guilty plea, indicating that, in his own assessment at that point, such a report was necessary. However:

The appellant missed the first probation appointment on 1 September because he was ill.
He was given a new appointment but attended on the wrong day.
The judge’s clerk indicated that a report could be prepared on the day of sentencing.
On the morning of sentence, a probation officer saw the appellant and recommended further assessment to explore whether a mental health treatment requirement and an alcohol treatment requirement would be appropriate.
Such assessments required an adjournment of about four weeks.

The judge declined to adjourn and proceeded to sentence immediately, without a PSR and without the recommended assessments.

2.4 The Appeal

The appellant appealed with leave granted by the single judge. The core argument advanced by counsel, Miss Johns, was that:

The judge erred in sentencing without the benefit of a PSR, especially having previously ordered one;
As a result, he failed properly to apply the 2025 Sentencing Council guideline on the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences, particularly in relation to:

the use and importance of PSRs; and
the structured assessment of whether a sentence can be suspended.

The judge’s reliance on missed probation appointments as demonstrating “gloomy” rehabilitation prospects was misplaced in the absence of a PSR and specialist assessments.

On granting leave, the single judge directed:

a full pre‑sentence report;
a mental health treatment suitability assessment and recommendation; and
an alcohol treatment requirement assessment.

Those materials were available to, and considered by, the Court of Appeal.

3. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal (Lewis LJ giving the judgment) held:

This was not a case in which the Crown Court could properly decide against suspending the sentence without a PSR and without the recommended mental health and alcohol assessments.
Given the 2025 guideline on community and custodial sentences, and the judge’s own assessment that the case was “borderline” on the question of immediate custody, the judge ought to have adjourned to enable a “quality” PSR and the necessary assessments to be prepared.
The judge’s adverse view of the appellant’s rehabilitation prospects, based largely on two missed probation appointments (one due to illness), was an insufficient basis for concluding that there was no realistic prospect of rehabilitation and that the appellant could not comply with suspended sentence requirements.
Proceeding to sentence without a PSR in these circumstances was an error of principle. The appeal against sentence was therefore allowed.
On the basis of the PSR and assessments obtained on appeal, the Court found that:
- the appellant presented a low risk of re‑offending and of causing serious harm;
- he had demonstrated the capacity to desist from crime (no convictions since 2016);
- mental health difficulties and alcohol misuse were significant drivers of the offending but were amenable to community-based interventions; and
- there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community.
Accordingly, the Court confirmed the custodial terms (18 months and 8 months concurrent) but suspended the sentence for 18 months, subject to:
- a mental health treatment requirement (up to 12 sessions);
- an alcohol treatment requirement for six months; and
- a rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) of up to 10 days.

The judgment thus both corrects an individual sentencing error and articulates a broader principle about the necessity of adjournment and PSRs in borderline suspension cases.

4. Legal Framework

4.1 The Sentencing Act 2020

Four provisions of the Sentencing Act 2020 are central to the Court’s reasoning:

4.1.1 Section 230: Custodial Sentence Threshold

Section 230 provides that a court:

“must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that the offence, or the combination of offences, is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified.”

This is the familiar custody threshold. It requires the court to ask:

Is the offence (alone or with others) so serious that nothing short of custody is justified?

If the answer is “no”, then a community-based sentence must be imposed instead. If “yes”, the court must then consider length and suspension.

4.1.2 Section 30: Duty to Obtain a Pre‑Sentence Report

Section 30 provides that a court:

“must obtain and consider a pre-sentence report unless in the circumstances of the case it considers that it is unnecessary to do so.”

This is not an absolute requirement in every case; the court may dispense with a PSR if it consciously concludes it is unnecessary. But the statute imposes:

a default position in favour of obtaining a PSR, and
a requirement that a decision not to obtain one is itself considered and reasoned.

4.1.3 Section 277: Power to Suspend Custodial Sentences

Section 277 allows a court to suspend a sentence of imprisonment if:

the term is at least 14 days, and
does not exceed two years.

The suspended sentence operates during a specified “operational period”. If the offender commits further offences or breaches requirements during that period, the court may activate the custodial term.

4.1.4 Section 59: Duty to Follow Sentencing Guidelines

Section 59 requires the court to follow relevant Sentencing Council guidelines unless they are satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. This makes guidelines binding in practice, subject to a structured “interests of justice” exception.

4.2 The 2025 Sentencing Council Guideline: Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences

The judgment concerns the revised guideline effective from 1 September 2025, which came into force shortly before the appellant was sentenced. The key parts relied on by the Court are:

4.2.1 Section 3: Pre‑Sentence Reports

Section 3 of the guideline reflects and fleshes out section 30 of the 2020 Act. It provides that:

When considering a community or custodial sentence, the court must request and consider a PSR unless it is unnecessary.
A PSR can be “pivotal” in deciding:
- whether to impose custody or a community order; and
- which requirements (e.g. treatment, rehabilitation) are suitable on a community order or a suspended sentence.
PSRs are particularly necessary where the case would benefit from assessment of:
- the nature and causes of offending;
- the offender’s personal circumstances; and
- any factor relevant to the offender’s suitability for different sentences or requirements.
A PSR may be unnecessary where the court already has sufficient information about the offence and the offender.
PSRs may be verbal or written.
Adjournments may be required to allow “quality” reports to be prepared, especially where third‑party input (e.g. mental health services) is needed.
The court should liaise with probation about whether a “quality report” can be delivered on the day, and adjourn if it cannot.

The notion of a “quality report” is key: it is not merely any rapid assessment, but one that properly addresses the necessary factors, especially in complex cases involving mental health and substance misuse.

4.2.2 Section 8: Deciding Whether to Impose and Suspend Custody

Section 8 sets out three structured questions:

Is a custodial sentence unavoidable (custody threshold)?
What is the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence?
Can the sentence be suspended?

The third question is the focus in Jode. The guideline states that the court should weigh specific factors indicating whether suspension may or may not be appropriate.

4.2.3 Factors Favouring Suspension

The guideline identifies the following as factors supporting the possibility of suspension:

a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community;
the offender does not present a high risk of re‑offending;
strong personal mitigation; and
immediate custody will result in significant harmful effects on others (e.g. dependants).

4.2.4 Factors Against Suspension

Factors indicating that suspension may not be appropriate include:

the offender presents a risk to any person;
the seriousness of the offence is such that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody;
a history of poor compliance with court orders; and
it is unlikely that the offender will comply with a suspended sentence in the future.

These lists are not exhaustive but provide a mandatory framework for judicial reasoning under s.59 of the 2020 Act.

4.3 Pre‑Sentence Reports: Purpose and Types

In broad terms (and consistent with the guideline), a PSR serves to:

inform the court about the offender’s background, circumstances, and risk;
identify factors driving the offending (e.g. mental health, addiction, social issues);
assess the feasibility and likely effectiveness of different sentence types;
make recommendations on:
- community orders or suspended sentence orders; and
- specific requirements, such as:
  - mental health treatment;
  - alcohol or drug treatment;
  - rehabilitation activity requirements (RARs);
  - unpaid work; or
  - programme requirements.

PSRs can be:

Verbal – given orally in court where time is short and issues are relatively straightforward; or
Written – usually fuller, with contributions from other agencies (e.g. health services) when mental health or substance misuse is in play.

The judgment in Jode emphasises that where community or suspended sentence requirements (such as mental health treatment or alcohol treatment) may be critical, a quality PSR often cannot realistically be prepared on the same day, and adjournment may be required.

5. Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

5.1 The Error in Proceeding Without a Pre‑Sentence Report

The Court of Appeal’s central finding is at paragraph 16:

“In our judgment this was not a case where the judge could properly reach that conclusion without a pre-sentence report assessing what if any requirements would be needed and what, if any, were the prospects of the appellant being able to comply with the requirements.”

Several points follow.

5.1.1 The Judge’s Own Recognition of the Need for a PSR

The trial judge had:

ordered a PSR after the guilty plea, “presumably because the judge thought it was necessary to have such a report” (para 5); and
been informed by probation on the day of sentence that further assessments were required for mental health and alcohol treatment requirements, necessitating a four‑week adjournment (para 5).

Despite this, he:

did not adjourn;
did not require a PSR or the recommended assessments; and
sentenced immediately, inferring from missed appointments that community requirements were unlikely to succeed (para 4).

The Court of Appeal viewed that as inconsistent with both section 30 of the 2020 Act and section 3 of the guideline, which emphasise the pivotal role of PSRs and the expectation of adjournment where a “quality” report cannot be produced on the day.

5.1.2 Lack of Information on Key Suspension Factors

For the suspension question, the guideline requires an assessment of:

whether there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community; and
whether the offender is likely to comply with community-based requirements (including in a suspended sentence order).

The Court found that:

“The decision to suspend or not to suspend would turn on an assessment of what requirements the appellant would have to meet in the community if the sentence were to be suspended, and an assessment of whether there was a realistic prospect of him being able to comply with those requirements. The judge did not have information on those matters.” (para 16)

Thus, the Crown Court lacked the very information that the guideline says a PSR is there to provide. In that context, the assertion that the appellant’s prospects of rehabilitation were “pretty gloomy” was not properly grounded in evidence.

5.2 Application of the 2025 Guideline: When Must Sentencing Be Adjourned?

Section 3 of the guideline states that if a quality PSR cannot be delivered on the day, the sentencing hearing should be adjourned. The Court applied that principle directly.

Key passages:

“Given the terms of the guideline, it seems to us that the judge should have adjourned to enable him to have that information available.” (para 16)
“It is difficult to see, and the judge did not say, that he had enough information available to enable him to sentence. Indeed the reverse seems to be the case.” (para 16)

At paragraph 17, the Court acknowledged a legitimate concern:

“We recognise that obtaining a pre-sentence report and having the assessments conducted would have required an adjournment and a delay in sentencing. Delays are generally undesirable and it is important that cases are dealt with and brought to a conclusion reasonably expeditiously. We would not want to inhibit judges from dealing with sentences when they do have enough information and where delay would not be justified.”

However, the judgment makes clear that:

Where the decision about suspending a borderline custodial sentence depends on information that only a PSR and related assessments can realistically provide, adjournment is required; and
Judges are not to use concerns about delay to sidestep the PSR requirement where the guideline (backed by statute) indicates it is necessary.

Thus, the judgment draws a line:

Permissible: sentencing without adjournment where the court genuinely has enough information (e.g. very clear-cut seriousness, full existing reports, straightforward circumstances).
Impermissible: declining adjournment and deciding against suspension where crucial information about rehabilitation, mental health or substance misuse has not been obtained, and the case is assessed as borderline.

5.3 Assessing Whether Custody Can Be Suspended

The Court then applied the section 8 factors to the appellant’s actual circumstances, based on the post‑appeal PSR and assessments.

5.3.1 Factors Favouring Suspension

The Court identified several factors favouring suspension (paras 18–22):

Realistic prospect of rehabilitation:
- The PSR described the appellant as presenting a low risk of re‑offending and a low risk of causing serious harm (para 18).
- He had not been convicted since 2016, indicating a capacity to desist from crime.
- His alcohol abuse and mental health issues (including ADHD) were identified as key issues, amenable to treatment (para 18).
- The author emphasised that “targeted support for mental health and substance misuse is essential to mitigate risk and support rehabilitation” (para 18).
Low risk profile:
- The Court accepted that the appellant did not present a risk to any person in the sense relevant to refusing suspension (para 22).
Protective factors:
- Previous ability to desist from offending;
- Expressed motivation to change;
- Availability of accommodation and potential employment on release (para 18).

On that basis, the Court was “satisfied in the light of the reports and the assessments that there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community” (para 21).

5.3.2 Factors Against Suspension

The Court then examined factors pointing against suspension:

Risk to others – The appellant did not present an ongoing risk to any person (para 22).
Seriousness requiring immediate custody – Although the firearm offence was serious and intimidating, the Court held that “the offence, although serious and intimidating, is not such that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate imprisonment” (para 22).
History of poor compliance – This was the most substantial countervailing factor and is discussed below.

5.3.3 History of Non‑Compliance and Missed Appointments

The guideline treats a history of poor compliance and the likelihood of future non‑compliance as strong factors against suspension. The Crown Court judge had heavily relied on:

past breaches of court orders (though the last breach was in 2016); and
the appellant’s failure to attend two probation appointments in 2025 (one due to illness).

The Court of Appeal’s nuanced approach was:

It accepted, in principle, that:
- “multiple failures to attend probation appointments without good cause may well enable a court to draw the inference that an offender is unlikely to comply with a suspended sentence order, especially when it might well contain a number of requirements.” (para 17)
However, in this case:
- the historic breaches were relatively old – “the last time in 2016 (almost 10 years ago)” (para 23);
- the appellant had since demonstrated an ability to stop offending;
- one missed appointment was due to illness; and
- the PSR supported the view that he was now likely to comply with requirements.

Accordingly, the Court concluded:

“We do not consider that it would be right or just in this case to regard those two failures, one due to illness, as justifying a conclusion that the appellant is unlikely to comply in the future, particularly in light of the reports that we have now received.” (para 23)

This is important: the Court recognises that compliance history is highly relevant, but it:

distinguishes between multiple, current, unexplained failures and isolated or partly explained ones;
insists that any inference of future non‑compliance must be grounded in a proper evidential basis rather than in frustration or assumption; and
stresses the value of PSRs in assessing the real prospects of compliance.

5.4 Use of New Information on Appeal and Re‑sentencing

Having identified the error, the Court did not remit for re‑sentencing but effectively re‑sentenced the appellant itself, on the basis of the newly obtained materials:

a full PSR;
a mental health treatment assessment by the Devon Partnership NHS Trust; and
an alcohol treatment assessment, indicating motivation to address alcohol misuse (paras 18–20).

The appellant confirmed in court that he understood the requirements and consented to them (para 20). Consent is essential for mental health treatment and certain other requirements.

The Court then:

left the custodial terms intact; but
ordered that the 18‑month term (and the concurrent 8‑month term) be suspended for 18 months; and
imposed:
- a mental health treatment requirement (up to 12 sessions with Devon Partnership Trust);
- an alcohol treatment requirement (six months with We Are With You in Cornwall);
- a RAR of up to 10 days (appointments/activities as directed by probation).

It also gave the standard suspended sentence warning: breach or further offending within the operational period may result in activation of the custodial term (para 25).

6. Authorities and Precedents Considered

Notably, the Court did not cite specific prior case law, but instead relied on:

The relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act 2020 (ss. 30, 59, 230, 277); and
The 2025 Sentencing Council guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences (sections 3 and 8).

This is significant in itself. The decision operates as a guideline‑focused authority, clarifying how courts must apply statutory and guideline rules in practice, rather than primarily developing the law through case‑to‑case analogies.

In effect, the Court:

reaffirms the binding force of Sentencing Council guidelines via section 59;
interprets section 30 (PSRs) in the light of the new 2025 guidance on “quality reports” and adjournments; and
provides a concrete example of the correct application of section 8 (suspension factors) in a borderline custody case.

7. Clarifying Key Legal Concepts

7.1 Pre‑Sentence Report (PSR)

A PSR is a report prepared by the probation service to help the court decide on sentence. It typically includes:

details of the offender’s background and circumstances;
analysis of the causes of offending (e.g. alcohol misuse, mental health, relationships);
assessment of risks:
- risk of re‑offending; and
- risk of causing serious harm;
consideration of community sentencing options and suitability for requirements; and
recommendations for sentence and requirements.

In Jode, the PSR was critical in:

establishing that the appellant was low risk in terms of re‑offending and serious harm;
identifying alcohol abuse and mental health issues as key drivers of his behaviour; and
proposing a structured package of:
- mental health treatment;
- alcohol treatment; and
- RAR days.

7.2 “Quality Report”

The guideline’s term “quality report” refers to a PSR that is:

adequate in scope to address the issues relevant to sentence;
properly informed by any necessary third‑party input (e.g. mental health services); and
of sufficient depth to support reasoned decisions about custody, community orders, and requirements.

A rushed same‑day verbal report may not always qualify as a “quality report” in complex cases, particularly those involving:

mental health treatment requirements;
alcohol or drug treatment requirements; or
complex risk assessments.

7.3 Suspended Sentence Order (SSO)

A suspended sentence order:

imposes a term of imprisonment;
but suspends its operation for an “operational period” (here, 18 months);
usually includes community-based requirements (treatment, RAR, unpaid work, etc.); and
may be activated if the offender:
- commits a further offence during the operational period; or
- fails to comply with the requirements.

It combines:

the threat of custody (deterrence); and
the rehabilitative potential of community interventions.

7.4 “Realistic Prospect of Rehabilitation”

This is a key factor favouring suspension. It does not require certainty, but a genuine, evidence‑based prospect that:

the offender can change behaviour with structured support; and
community requirements are likely to succeed.

In Jode, the realistic prospect of rehabilitation was grounded in:

the long gap since the last offence (2016);
the identification of treatable issues (alcohol misuse; ADHD and other mental health problems);
the availability of accommodation and possible employment; and
the appellant’s stated motivation to change.

7.5 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR)

A RAR authorises probation to direct the offender to:

attend appointments; and/or
participate in specific activities (e.g. courses, one‑to‑one work) aimed at reducing re‑offending.

The sentence specifies a maximum number of “RAR days”. In this case, the Court ordered “up to 10 days” (para 24).

7.6 Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR)

An MHTR is a community‑based requirement under which:

the offender must undergo mental health treatment;
with a treatment provider (typically NHS mental health services);
for a specified period or number of sessions; and
with the offender’s consent.

Here, the Devon Partnership NHS Trust assessed the appellant as capable of undertaking 12 sessions and recommended suitable treatment (para 20). The Court incorporated this into the SSO.

7.7 Alcohol Treatment Requirement (ATR)

An ATR requires the offender to:

submit to treatment for alcohol dependency;
with a specified provider; and
for a specified duration.

In this case, the provider is “We Are With You” in Cornwall, and the treatment period is six months (para 24).

8. Impact and Significance

8.1 Impact on Sentencing Practice

The decision provides concrete guidance for Crown Court judges on three related questions:

When is a PSR necessary?
When must a sentencing hearing be adjourned for a “quality report”?
How should courts apply the suspension factors in section 8 of the 2025 guideline?

Key practical implications:

Borderline custody/suspension cases:
- Where the judge sees the decision as “borderline” and the seriousness of the offence alone does not clearly demand immediate custody, a PSR will ordinarily be required.
- If probation indicates that meaningful assessment (e.g. mental health, ATR) cannot be carried out on the day, the judge should normally adjourn.
Use of missed appointments:
- Missed probation appointments may be relevant to compliance and rehabilitation prospects.
- But judges should not treat one or two missed appointments (especially where at least one has a plausible explanation) as conclusive proof that a suspended sentence is unworkable, particularly in the absence of a PSR.
Historic non‑compliance:
- Old breaches (e.g. last in 2016) must be considered in context, including evidence of later desistance and present motivation to change.
Delay vs information:
- The Court explicitly accepts that delay is undesirable.
- However, delay is justified where necessary to obtain a PSR and assessments critical to deciding whether a custodial sentence can be suspended.

8.2 Guidance for Probation and Report Writers

The judgment implicitly underscores the importance of:

Promptly identifying when full assessments (e.g. MHTR, ATR) are needed;
Communicating clearly to the court when a “quality report” cannot be produced on the day and explaining why an adjournment is needed; and
Providing structured, evidence‑based recommendations on:
- risk of re‑offending and serious harm;
- rehabilitation prospects; and
- suitability for community and suspended sentence requirements.

In Jode, the eventual PSR and assessments were persuasive and central to the Court’s decision to suspend the sentence.

8.3 Guidance for Defence Practitioners and Defendants

For defence lawyers and defendants, the decision underscores:

The importance of attending PSR appointments and keeping the court informed about any legitimate reasons for absence (e.g. illness);
The need to:
- press for PSRs where suspension or complex community requirements may be at issue; and
- rely on the 2025 guideline’s expectation of adjournment for “quality reports” where necessary.
The value of gathering evidence of:
- mental health difficulties;
- substance misuse issues; and
- protective factors (stable accommodation, employment prospects, supportive relationships).

8.4 When Immediate Custody Without Adjournment May Still Be Justified

The Court is careful not to suggest that a PSR and adjournment are always required. Immediate custody without a PSR may be justified where:

The offence is so serious that immediate custody is clearly required, and suspension is plainly inappropriate regardless of rehabilitative prospects;
There is already a recent, comprehensive PSR or equivalent information before the court; or
The court genuinely has “enough information about the offence and the offender” within the meaning of section 3 of the guideline.

However, Jode makes clear that courts must be ready to explain why they considered a PSR unnecessary, especially where:

they have previously ordered one; and
probation has indicated that further assessment is needed.

9. Practical Lessons and Illustrative Scenarios

To illustrate the application of the principles in Jode, consider the following scenarios:

9.1 Borderline Violence with Mental Health Concerns

An offender with a history of anxiety and depression commits a serious but isolated assault, crossing the custody threshold. Probation indicates that a mental health assessment is needed to consider an MHTR but cannot produce it on the day.

Under Jode, the court should:

recognise that suspension is potentially viable if there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation;
adjourn for a “quality report” and assessment rather than conclude, without evidence, that the offender cannot be managed in the community.

9.2 Repeat Non‑Compliance and Missed Appointments

An offender repeatedly fails to attend multiple probation appointments without explanation and has a recent history of breaching community orders. A PSR is attempted but is severely hindered by non‑engagement.

Here, even under Jode, the court may legitimately conclude:

that there is little realistic prospect of rehabilitation within the community; and
that a suspended sentence is unlikely to be effective due to demonstrated non‑compliance.

The decision in Jode does not prevent courts from drawing adverse inferences where there is a clear and current pattern of non‑engagement.

9.3 Straightforward Case with Full Information Already Available

An offender with a recent, comprehensive PSR from a related matter appears for sentence shortly afterwards, with no relevant change in circumstances. The court has full details of risk, needs, and rehabilitation prospects.

In such a case, the court may reasonably conclude a fresh PSR is “unnecessary” and proceed to sentence, provided it applies the suspension factors lawfully. Jode does not require duplication of reports when they already exist.

10. Conclusion

R v Jode [2025] EWCA Crim 1617 is an important sentencing decision that operationalises the 2025 Sentencing Council guideline on community and custodial sentences. It establishes, in practical terms, that:

In borderline cases where the seriousness of the offence does not itself dictate immediate custody, and where suspension depends on rehabilitative prospects and compliance with community-based requirements, the court will normally need a PSR and any relevant specialist assessments.
If a “quality report” cannot be prepared on the day, the court should adjourn rather than proceed to immediate custody based on limited information or speculative inferences from isolated missed appointments.
Missed probation appointments and historic non‑compliance must be assessed with nuance: they are relevant but not automatically determinative, especially where there is evidence of subsequent desistance and current motivation to change.
Sentencing judges must rigorously apply the structured factors in section 8 of the guideline when deciding whether a custodial sentence can be suspended, and must ensure that decisions are supported by appropriate evidential material.

By suspending the appellant’s sentence and imposing targeted mental health and alcohol treatment requirements, the Court of Appeal demonstrates a balanced approach that:

respects the seriousness of the offending;
gives effect to the statutory and guideline framework on custody, PSRs, and suspension; and
recognises the role of structured community interventions in reducing re‑offending.

The core precedent emerging from Jode is that judges cannot lawfully dispense with pre‑sentence reports and necessary assessments in borderline suspension cases simply to avoid delay, particularly where they have themselves recognised the need for such reports and probation has advised that further assessment is required. This principle will shape the conduct of sentencing hearings in similar cases and strengthen the practical use of PSRs in promoting proportionate, evidence‑based sentencing.