Caudrey, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 21 November 2025 in the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant, then aged 20, was sentenced by Judge Long to two years' detention in The Institution for being concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of a class B drug (cannabis). The Appellant had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court and was committed for sentence to the Crown Court pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The Appellant appealed by leave of the single judge.

The court registry noted that the Crown Court record incorrectly stated "imprisonment" rather than "detention" and directed that the record be corrected to reflect detention because the Appellant was under 21 at the time.

On 24 October 2025 the Appellant arrived at The City Airport on a flight from The State. Border Force agents questioned him; he admitted there was "weed" in his suitcase. The suitcase contained 15 kilos of herbal cannabis in 1kg vacuum-sealed packages, estimated value £37,500. He refused to provide his phone PIN and gave a no comment interview. The Appellant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and received a one-third credit for plea.

The pre-sentence report and institutional reports describe the Appellant's complex background: diagnosed complex learning difficulties and foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, possible ADHD, dysfunctional childhood (time in foster care, raised by grandparents, biological parents died when he was 11), little family support, unstable accommodation, no educational qualifications, previous non-drug convictions for burglary-related offences, and a history of drug use as a coping mechanism. The report records expressions of remorse, willingness to engage with probation and rehabilitation, positive behaviour in custody, and successful prior completion of youth referral orders.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of two years' detention was manifestly excessive in light of the aggravating and mitigating features identified.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to address the factors in the definitive Guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences (i.e., whether a suspended sentence was available and appropriate).
3. If error occurred, what is the appropriate substituted sentence?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Flint)

• The notional sentence after trial (three years' detention before plea credit) was manifestly excessive when proper weight was given to age, immaturity, personal history and mitigation in the pre-sentence report.
• The sentencing judge failed to address the factors in the Guideline on community and custodial sentences and therefore erred in principle in concluding that only immediate custody would suffice; a suspended sentence should have been imposed.
• Reliance (in written submissions) on R v Defendant [2024] EWCA Crim 296 as an example where a suspended sentence was substituted, though this was not pressed orally.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The offence was on the cusp between guideline categories 2 and 3 given the quantity; the prevalence of similar offending at The City Airport called for deterrence.
• Given those aggravating factors and some previous convictions, a substantial custodial sentence was justified and within the applicable range.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The sentencing remarks by Judge Long were found to be insufficiently detailed: he did not specify the guideline category for the offence or address the factors in the Guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences before concluding that only immediate custody would suffice. The prosecution's helpful note and the quantity of drugs suggested the offending lay between category 3 and category 2.

The court analysed aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating: substantial quantity of cannabis, rising prevalence of such offending, some previous convictions. Mitigating: youth and immaturity, cognitive impairments (complex learning difficulties, foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, possible ADHD), vulnerable background including exploitation and manipulation, genuine remorse, positive engagement with probation and the custodial regime, no relevant previous drug convictions, and successful completion of prior youth referral orders. Institutional reports showed good behaviour and engagement.

The court concluded the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating ones. It determined the notional sentence after trial should have been 27 months' detention, leading, after full credit for the guilty plea, to 18 months' detention. Because the Recorder failed to apply the Guideline factors, the Court considered those factors itself and found the Appellant met three of the four criteria favouring a suspended sentence order (realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community, manageable risks, strong personal mitigation). The court acknowledged the importance of deterrence but concluded that, on balance and given the Appellant's vulnerabilities and rehabilitation prospects, a suspended sentence order was appropriate in this exceptional, fact-specific case.

Holding and Implications

ALLOW — The appeal is allowed. The court substituted for the sentence of two years' detention a sentence of 18 months' detention suspended for two years, with a rehabilitation activity requirement of 25 days and an unpaid work requirement of 100 hours.

Consequences: If the Appellant commits further offences during the suspension period or fails to comply with the requirements, he may be returned to The Institution to serve part or all of the remaining custodial term.

The court emphasized that this outcome is exceptional and peculiar to the facts of this case and stated expressly that it is not to be treated as a guideline for future cases.