Summary of Opinion by Judge Cheema-Grubb

Factual and Procedural Background

On 27 October 2025 at the Crown Court in The City, the Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a Class A controlled drug (MDMA) with intent to supply and possession of a Class B controlled drug (ketamine) with intent to supply, dated 25 August 2023, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On 8 December 2025 Judge Rankin sentenced the Appellant to 30 months' imprisonment on the Class A count and 12 months concurrent on the Class B count, with ancillary orders for forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and deprivation of a mobile phone.

At the relevant time the Appellant was stopped at the south entrance to Festival A after a passive drugs dog indicated. She admitted carrying concealed packages on instruction from an unknown male in exchange for a festival ticket. The packages contained approximately 24.9g MDMA and 17.3g ketamine, with expert evidence translating those amounts into a specified number of deals and approximate value. The Appellant initially answered "no comment" in police interview, entered not guilty pleas at earlier hearings, and then entered guilty pleas on a written basis approximately six weeks before trial. The Crown accepted the basis of plea and Judge Rankin categorised the Appellant as a lesser role courier.

Pre-sentence reports and a community impact statement from Officer Fleming described Festival A as a high-risk environment for drug supply, noting significant quantities seized at the event and large daily attendance. The Appellant was assessed as primary carer for her 12-year-old son, had extensive physical and mental health difficulties, a history of substance misuse, and a substantial criminal record comprising multiple convictions over many years. The appeal concerns the adequacy of the sentence and the weight given to mitigation, including caregiving responsibilities.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to give adequate weight to substantial personal mitigation, including the Appellant's role as primary carer for a vulnerable child.
2. Whether the Recorder's provisional starting point (a sentence elevated close to 3 years) was unduly high for a lesser-role courier under the Sentencing Council Drugs Offences Guideline.
3. Whether, applying the Sentencing Council Drugs Offences Guideline, the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Guideline, and the principles in R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214, the sentence should have been materially lower and not immediate custody (i.e. suspended or community-based).

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecution's Arguments

• The festival context and the quantities of drugs increased potential harm; the drugs could yield multiple deals and had significant value.
• Festival A's environment increased risks to tens of thousands of attendees, adding to policing burdens and public safety concerns; past deaths associated with MDMA at the event were emphasised.
• Although the Appellant was a courier, the intended onward sale placed her culpability within a commercial supply framework; aggravating features justified a sentence above the category 4 starting point of 18 months, potentially toward the top of the range.
• Failure to desist despite public warnings and existing surrender measures aggravated the offending; general deterrence supported immediate custody.

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Buckland)

• The Appellant acted as a pressured courier to reduce a drug debt, with no personal profit, planning, or wider criminal connections; phone downloads contained no evidence of supply.
• Significant personal mitigation: primary carer for a vulnerable child; extensive physical and mental health problems including PTSD from domestic abuse; risk of disproportionate hardship from custody; ongoing education and steps toward rehabilitation.
• Pre-sentence reports supported the prospect of rehabilitation in the community; reliance on R v Petherick and the Imposition Guideline to argue compelling reasons to avoid immediate custody or to suspend any custodial term.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that the festival context, drug quantities and antecedents were valid aggravating features and that a starting point elevated within category 4 was open. It identified error in the Recorder's statement that the Appellant's only mitigation was her plea, noting this was manifestly inconsistent with the material before him.

Applying Petherick, the court emphasised that the sentencing judge should have (1) identified the interference with family life; (2) considered lawfulness and legitimate aim; and (3) carried out a careful proportionality assessment balancing offence gravity against the child's welfare. The Recorder failed to assess or explain the weight (if any) given to the Appellant's caregiving role, her son's vulnerabilities, and her physical and mental health and rehabilitation prospects as evidenced in pre-sentence reports.

The appellate court concluded that, while the custody threshold was crossed (immediate custody being normally required for festival Class A supply), the mitigation was sufficiently compelling to require a meaningful reduction from the provisional sentence. It conducted a fact-specific balancing exercise and determined an appropriate downward adjustment of at least eight months from the provisional sentence, yielding a final custodial term of 22 months on the principal count. The court considered suspension but concluded that a suspended sentence would not reflect seriousness or provide general deterrence in this festival-supply context.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART

Holding: The court quashed the 30-month sentence on count 1 and replaced it with a sentence of 22 months' imprisonment; the concurrent 12-month sentence on count 2 and the ancillary orders for forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and deprivation of the mobile phone were confirmed.

Implications: The direct effect is a reduced immediate custodial term for the Appellant (22 months on the principal count, concurrent 12 months on the other). The court clarified that sentencing judges must assess and give express reasoned weight to dependent children and substantial personal mitigation under Petherick and the Imposition Guideline; however, no novel legal principle was established beyond the proper application of those authorities and guidelines.