Factual and Procedural Background
On 3 January 2025 the Appellant pleaded guilty at The Court to two counts of being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs, one count of possession with intent to supply Class A drugs and one count of simple possession. On 15 August 2025 she was sentenced to an overall term of 22 months' imprisonment. The Appellant was granted leave to appeal by Judge McGowan on the single ground that immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
Relevant facts: on 19 May 2023 officers executed a warrant at the Appellant's home and found a small amount of cocaine and cash and evidence of involvement in supply since August 2022. On 9 October 2023 a further warrant at the same address uncovered a quantity of Class A drugs. Postal requisitions were issued in late October 2024; the Appellant appeared in the magistrates' court on 28 November 2024 and pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing on 3 January 2025.
A basis of plea uploaded on 2 April stated that the Appellant (summarised): (1) has a long-standing Class A drug addiction; (2) was released from prison owing money and pressured to assist an ongoing enterprise; (3) suffered domestic violence; (4) received an Osman warning; and (5) many texts showed she was also trying to feed her own habit. The prosecution accepted that basis at sentence.
At sentence the judge treated the offending as lesser role, assessed harm as category 3 street dealing (starting point 3 years, range 2 to 4½ years), increased the sentence for duration and for two separate sets of matters (including offending while under investigation), reduced for significant mitigation to 30 months and then applied about 25% credit for plea to reach 22 months' imprisonment.
The judge had before him a pre-sentence report (5 August 2025) and a liaison and diversion report (26 June 2025) describing the Appellant as vulnerable, with a history of domestic violence, recent birth (February 2024) and loss of her child to care and adoption, the death of her father (24 December 2024), progress in drug use, and recent negative drug tests. The probation officer assessed suitability for a rehabilitation activity requirement and a drug rehabilitation requirement.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding that a custodial sentence must be served immediately rather than being suspended, i.e. whether the immediate custodial element of the sentence was manifestly excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The judge erred in assessing the Appellant as unable or unlikely to comply with a suspended sentence order; updated reports demonstrated a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community and, applying the Sentencing Council's Overarching Guideline on the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences, immediate custody was not necessary. (Represented at sentence and on appeal by Attorney Watts.)
Prosecution's Position
- The prosecution accepted the basis of plea and did not challenge the length of the custodial term passed by the sentencing judge.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Ali [2023] 2 Cr App R (S) |
Judges must have regard to the very high prison population when considering suspension of custodial sentences. |
The court noted this principle as part of the overarching sentencing context which judges should consider when deciding whether to suspend custody. |
| R v Bond [2024] EWCA Crim 406 |
Summarises the general appellate approach to interference with sentencing decisions on suspension. |
The court relied on the summary to assert that appellate intervention is cautious and that sentencing judges' judgments will not be lightly disturbed. |
| R v Price [2023] EWCA Crim 1060 |
Explains that the decision whether to suspend is a difficult, judgment-based exercise; factors are incommensurable and the appellate court will not lightly interfere; appellants must show the decision was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. |
The court quoted this passage to frame the standard for appellate review and to explain the threshold for overturning the sentencing judge's decision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the Overarching Guideline's listed factors favouring and disfavouring suspension (including realistic prospect of rehabilitation, risk of reoffending/harm, strong personal mitigation, and history of poor compliance). It observed the sentencing judge did not expressly cite the Guideline but plainly had it in mind. The court identified several criticisms of the sentencing approach:
- The judge characterised the task as requiring factors to "persuade" him to suspend, implying a presumption in favour of immediate custody; the court said that characterisation was incorrect because no such presumption exists.
- The judge made no reference to gender-specific matters relevant when sentencing female offenders (noting that specific guidance became effective shortly after sentence but that gender-specific considerations were relevant even before formal effect); the court emphasised the Appellant's vulnerability, links between offending and trauma/substance misuse/domestic abuse, recent progress in treatment, and the likely heightened impact of custody on a female offender with limited support.
- The court found both reports before the judge concluded there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and that the sentencing judge relied on historical poor compliance without sufficient regard to more up-to-date, positive assessments of motivation and engagement.
- The court rejected the notion that repeated supply while under investigation automatically mandates immediate custody, stressing that the decision is case-specific and requires balancing competing factors.
Applying those points to the facts—Appellant's age (36), long history of addiction and offending but a 22-month delay since the last offence with no further offending, engagement with support, recent negative tests and strong mitigation—the court concluded the factors in favour of suspension outweighed the reasons for immediate custody in this case.
Holding and Implications
Appeal allowed in part: the sentence of immediate imprisonment was held to be manifestly excessive.
Direct consequences: the 22-month custodial sentence (and concurrent sentences) are suspended for 24 months from the date of sentence and replaced with requirements set out in the pre-sentence report: a 20-day rehabilitation activity requirement, a 6-month drug rehabilitation requirement, and 6 months of electronically monitored curfew monitoring. The appeal therefore succeeds to that extent.
No new legal precedent was created; the court applied existing guidelines and appellate principles to the facts of this case.