Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

On 13 June 2025 the Appellant pleaded guilty at The Magistrates' Court to being concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of a class B controlled drug (herbal cannabis) contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and was committed to The Crown Court for sentence. On 10 July 2025 at The Crown Court the Appellant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. The Appellant appealed with leave granted by a single judge.

The offence occurred on 11 June 2025 when the Appellant arrived at an airport terminal after flights from abroad. He admitted the two suitcases were his, that he packed them, was aware of their contents and the prohibition on importation. The suitcases contained vacuum-sealed packages totalling 31.66 kilograms of herbal cannabis (estimated street value £949,920). The prosecution's case was that the Appellant acted as a courier.

The Appellant, aged 35, had prior convictions (eight convictions for 12 offences between October 2006 and May 2018, including earlier Class A drug matters). At sentence defence counsel (Attorney McKee) applied for a pre-sentence report and contended a suspended sentence might be appropriate given reported mental health issues, employment history, limited previous like offending and family circumstances. The Recorder refused the adjournment, proceeded to sentence, assessed the offence between harm categories 2 and 3, reached a notional sentence of 2½ years, applied a three-month mitigation reduction and a one-third reduction for the early plea to impose 18 months' imprisonment, and declined to suspend the sentence.

After sentence a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric report were prepared. The pre-sentence report recorded the Appellant's account that he agreed for payment (£5,000, partially paid) to bring the cases into the United Kingdom, noted engagement with programmes in custody and suitability for community requirements. The psychiatric report (Dr Collins) diagnosed recurrent depressive illness and a moderate mixed personality disorder; concluded the Appellant was not psychotic nor bipolar and that at the time of the offence he was not depressed or using illicit drugs in Thailand and had considered the options before acting.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing Judge erred in failing to obtain and consider a pre-sentence report (and, if necessary, a psychiatric report) before imposing sentence and deciding whether suspension was appropriate, including the application of section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
2. Whether the 18 month custodial sentence was manifestly excessive—specifically whether the Appellant's role should have been treated as lesser within Category 3 and/or whether mental disorder reduced culpability or pointed to suspension.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Recorder should have ordered a pre-sentence report (and considered a psychiatric report) before sentencing; had she done so the sentence should have been suspended given the Appellant's mental health difficulties.
• The length of the sentence was excessive; the Appellant's role was more properly within the lesser category and the sentence ought to have been towards the lower end of Category 3 lesser role.
• Criticism of the psychiatric report's conclusions: Attorney McKee submitted the Appellant's depression, voices, low self-esteem, emotional dysregulation and engagement with mental health services reduced culpability.
• Post-custody progress (engagement with services, courses, addressing substance misuse) and family circumstances (father's serious illness) supported suspension or a reduced notional sentence.

Prosecution's Position

• The prosecution's case was that the Appellant acted as a courier, knowingly importing a large quantity of cannabis for financial reward and was aware of the illegality and consequences.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first criticised the sentencing process for not ordering reports: section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020 required the Judge to order a pre-sentence report unless unnecessary, and here the likely length of sentence made a report appropriate. The court observed there was material before sentence indicating mental health engagement in custody, so more information was needed to balance criteria for and against suspension; at minimum liaison and diversion input could have been sought.

Having received the pre-sentence report and the psychiatric report, the court re-evaluated sentence. It accepted Dr Collins' expert conclusions that the Appellant suffers recurrent depressive illness and a moderate mixed personality disorder but found no sufficient causal connection between those disorders and the offending to reduce culpability. The psychiatric evidence indicated the Appellant was not depressed or using drugs at the time in Thailand and had clearly considered his options; the disorder did not impair his capacity to make rational choices or understand consequences.

The court applied the offence-specific guideline to assess culpability and agreed with the original sentencing Judge that the Appellant's role contained aspects of both lesser (courier, limited function under direction) and significant role (expectation of significant financial reward). The court accepted the Recorder's notional sentence of 2½ years after trial, affirmed a three-month reduction for mitigation and full one-third credit for the early guilty plea, producing an 18 month immediate custodial term.

On suspension the court acknowledged the Recorder should have given fuller reasons in sentencing remarks but concluded, on consideration of the reports, that despite evidence of a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and not high risk of re-offending, the seriousness of importing a large quantity of cannabis for personal profit meant appropriate punishment required immediate custody.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The appeal against sentence was dismissed; the 18 month immediate custodial sentence is upheld.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant's sentence of 18 months' imprisonment remains in force. The court emphasised the need to obtain and consider pre-sentence and, where appropriate, psychiatric reports before sentencing—particularly where mental health is asserted and the sentence imposed may be capable of suspension—but did not set a new principle reducing the Appellant's culpability; no new precedent beyond the application of existing guidelines was established in this opinion.