Summary of Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

On 12 September 2025, at The Court, the Appellant was sentenced after pleading guilty to three offences: possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence (18 months' imprisonment), assault occasioning actual bodily harm (8 months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently), and a minor offence of damaging property (no separate penalty imposed). The Appellant obtained leave to appeal the sentence from a single judge. The sole issue on appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred in his approach to determining whether the custodial sentence could be suspended.

The factual background as recorded by the sentencing judge was that the Appellant and an associate used to work together and occasionally met. In March 2023 the Victim met the Appellant while out with friends and went back to the Appellant's flat. The Appellant took an imitation firearm, placed it at the Victim's face, threatened her, cocked the imitation firearm, struck her causing pain and damaged her glasses. The Victim attended hospital afterwards. Imitation firearms were seized from the Appellant's flat and he was subsequently arrested.

At the sentencing hearing the judge had ordered a pre-sentence report which was not available on the day because the Appellant missed probation appointments (once due to illness and once by attending on the wrong day). A probation officer who saw the Appellant at court recommended further assessment for possible mental health and alcohol treatment requirements and advised that an adjournment of approximately four weeks would be required to obtain those assessments. The sentencing judge nevertheless proceeded to sentence the Appellant and declined to suspend the custodial sentence, citing the Appellant's missed probation appointments as undermining prospects of rehabilitation. The Appellant appealed on the ground that the judge erred by proceeding without the pre-sentence report and relevant assessments.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred by proceeding to impose an immediate custodial sentence without obtaining and considering a pre-sentence report and recommended assessments (mental health and alcohol) that had been ordered and which probation said required an adjournment to complete.
2. Whether, in the light of the pre-sentence report and assessments obtained on appeal, the custodial sentence could properly be suspended with specified requirements.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge had ordered a pre-sentence report and evidently considered one necessary; proceeding without it was an error.
• By sentencing without the report and without completing the recommended assessments, the judge failed to apply the Sentencing Council Guideline on the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences, in particular the guidance about when a pre-sentence report is required and when an adjournment should be ordered.
• The judge was wrong to treat the Appellant's failure to attend two probation appointments as sufficient evidence that there was no realistic prospect of rehabilitation or that the Appellant would comply with community requirements.

The opinion does not set out any detailed opposing submissions by the prosecution in the text provided.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court analysed the issue by reference to statutory provisions and the Sentencing Council guideline cited in the sentencing judge's reasoning. The court noted the following statutory provisions set out in the opinion: section 230 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (custody to be imposed only where offences are so serious that only custody can be justified), section 30 (requirement to obtain and consider a pre-sentence report unless unnecessary), section 277 (power to suspend sentences of between 14 days and two years), and section 59 (obligation to follow relevant sentencing guidelines unless not in the interests of justice).

The court examined the Sentencing Council guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences (effective 1 September 2025) and highlighted the parts of the guideline relied on: section 3 (pre-sentence reports and when adjournment is necessary) and section 8 (the three questions a court should ask when considering custody, including the specific factors to weigh when deciding whether a sentence can be suspended). The guideline instructs courts to request and consider a pre-sentence report unless unnecessary, to liaise with probation about whether a quality report can be produced on the day, and to adjourn when a quality report cannot be delivered on the day. It also lists factors that point towards or away from suspension, including prospects of rehabilitation, risk of re-offending, seriousness of the offence, and history of compliance.

The court found that the sentencing judge was aware of the need to consider suspension and had referred to relevant factors, but that he relied principally on the Appellant's failure to attend two probation appointments to conclude that prospects of rehabilitation were negligible. The appellate court held that, given the guideline and the judge's own earlier order for a pre-sentence report, the judge should have adjourned the sentencing hearing to obtain the report and the further assessments (mental health and alcohol) which the probation officer said were necessary. The court emphasised that the decision whether to suspend would turn on an assessment of what requirements would be needed in the community and the realistic prospect of the Appellant's compliance; the sentencing judge did not have that information.

The court acknowledged that adjournments and delay are generally undesirable and that multiple unexplained failures to attend probation appointments can justify an inference that an offender will not comply with a suspended sentence. However, on the facts of this case the court considered that the specific missed appointments (one due to illness and the other an error of attendance date) together with the absence of the report and assessments meant the judge had insufficient information to reach the conclusion he did.

After granting leave and obtaining the pre-sentence report and the assessments, the court reviewed their contents. The pre-sentence report recorded that the Appellant presented a low risk of re-offending and low risk of causing serious harm, noted problems with alcohol and some mental health issues (including ADHD), and identified protective factors such as previous desistance, expressed motivation to change, and the availability of accommodation and potential employment. The report recommended an 18-month suspended order incorporating a mental health treatment requirement (12 sessions), an alcohol treatment requirement, and up to 10 rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) days. The mental health and alcohol assessments (prepared by Company A and other services) indicated the Appellant was capable and motivated to engage with the proposed interventions. The Appellant confirmed in court that he understood and consented to the proposed requirements and was prepared to comply.

On that basis the appellate court concluded that, with the benefit of the reports and assessments, the relevant factors in the guideline indicated a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community and that none of the factors indicating suspension was inappropriate were shown. The court therefore concluded the sentencing judge had erred by not adjournng to obtain the pre-sentence report and assessments before deciding whether to suspend the custodial sentence.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is allowed and the custodial sentence is suspended.

Consequence for the parties (direct effect): The appellate court substituted a suspended sentence order. The sentences of 18 months' imprisonment (for the imitation firearms offence) and eight months' imprisonment (for the assault), to run concurrently, are suspended for a supervision period of 18 months. The suspended sentence order includes the following requirements during the supervision period:

• A mental health treatment requirement of up to 12 sessions to be delivered by Company A;
• An alcohol treatment requirement requiring the Appellant to undergo alcohol dependency treatment for six months to be delivered by Company B;
• A rehabilitation activity requirement requiring attendance and participation in activities as directed by the responsible probation officer for up to 10 days (RAR days).

The court made clear that if the Appellant commits a further offence within the operational period of the order or fails to comply with any of the requirements, he may be returned to prison to serve the remainder of the sentence.

Broader implications: The opinion emphasises compliance with statutory provisions and the Sentencing Council guideline concerning pre-sentence reports and the circumstances in which adjournment is required. The decision is explicated in the specific factual context and the court did not purport to establish a novel principle beyond applying the guideline and statutory law; therefore no new broad precedent was announced beyond the application of those instruments on the facts.