Long, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, a seaman serving in the Royal Navy since 2016, pleaded guilty to being absent without leave while his ship was on operational service in Bahrain in January 2023. Subject to restrictions imposed due to prior misconduct, including a prohibition on alcohol consumption and overnight stays ashore, the appellant deliberately failed to return to his ship at the required time. He was absent from 10 pm on 27 January until 11:40 am the following day, returning late due to forgetting his identification card. The appellant apologized and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

At a court martial held about a year later, the maximum available sentence was agreed to be 28 days' service detention. The court found several aggravating factors, including the operational deployment location, premeditation, and prior warnings, balanced against mitigating factors such as the short absence period and voluntary return. The court imposed 7 days' service detention, suspended initially for 2 years but later reduced to 12 months, the maximum period available in the circumstances. The appellant appealed solely on the ground that the operational period of suspension was too long.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the length of the operational period of the suspended sentence was disproportionate to the custodial sentence imposed.
2. Whether the court martial failed to give adequate weight to the appellant’s good conduct in the 12 months preceding sentencing.
3. Whether the court martial properly applied the Sentencing Council’s Imposition Guideline and the requirements of section 259 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 in determining the operational period.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The operational period of 12 months was disproportionate to the 7 days' service detention sentence.
• The court martial failed to sufficiently consider the appellant’s 12 months of good conduct prior to sentencing.
• The court martial did not properly apply the Sentencing Council’s Imposition Guideline as required by section 259 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which suggests that the suspension period should reflect the length of the custodial sentence.
• The appellant had already demonstrated significant rehabilitation during the lengthy delay before sentencing, reducing the need for a longer operational period.
• The appellant was serving under particularly austere conditions, which increased the pressure imposed by a lengthy suspended sentence.

Respondent's Arguments

• The court martial, as a specialist tribunal, was best placed to consider the service context and the importance of discipline during operational deployment.
• Service discipline is critical in austere conditions, justifying the length of the operational period.
• While acknowledging the relevance of the appellant’s conduct between offence and sentencing, the court martial’s decision to maintain the 12-month suspension was justified.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the Sentencing Council’s guideline on suspension periods is not inflexible and that a longer operational period than the custodial sentence may be appropriate for deterrence. It found no error in principle or manifest excess in the court martial’s initial decision to impose a 12-month suspension for a 7-day detention.

However, the court carefully considered the appellant’s 12 months of good conduct prior to sentencing, recognizing this as a significant factor indicating reform and rehabilitation. It noted that failing to reduce the suspension period to reflect this good conduct would result in the same operational period regardless of the length of pre-sentencing good behaviour, which was unjustified.

Balancing the need for discipline with the appellant’s demonstrated rehabilitation, the court concluded that greater weight should have been given to the appellant’s conduct during the delay before sentencing. Therefore, a reduction in the operational period was warranted to properly reflect the appellant’s progress and circumstances.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeal.

The original sentence of 7 days’ service detention suspended for 12 months was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 7 days’ service detention suspended for 8 months.

The decision directly affects the appellant by shortening the suspension period, acknowledging his rehabilitation prior to sentencing. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing sentencing principles in the military context.