Evans, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty to supplying a class A controlled drug on 1 November 2023. Plain-clothed police officers observed the Appellant supply a wrap containing 0.085g of diamorphine to another man (the Recipient) in The City. The Appellant was followed to his flat on [Number] Main Street where, on arrest and search, officers found 0.751g of diamorphine and paraphernalia. The Appellant said the drugs were for his own use.

The Appellant was released on investigation, charged by post on 25 January 2025 and indicated guilty pleas at the Magistrates' Court and then at the Crown Court at The City on 22 April 2025. At sentence on 2 July 2025 before Judge Jowett at the Crown Court the Appellant received an immediate custodial sentence of 2,045 days, being the statutory seven year minimum reduced by 20% for an early guilty plea under s.313 Sentencing Act 2020. The Appellant obtained leave to appeal against sentence; the Court of Appeal (Judge Lewis, Judge Stacey and Judge Williams) heard the appeal on 25 March 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Judge Jowett erred in concluding that there were no exceptional circumstances under s.313(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020 (as applied with s.313(2A) following s.124 Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022) such that the statutory seven year minimum custodial term should not be disapplied.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The offence involved the supply of a single wrap of heroin weighing less than one gram, to another entrenched class A user, almost ten years after the Appellant's last drug offence.
• The Appellant had engaged voluntarily with The Addiction Service since 2020, was on a Buvidal opiate substitute programme, had completed Tier One therapy and was due for Tier Two; this progress and support were mitigating and together amounted to exceptional circumstances.
• An alternative to immediate custody (community sentence or suspended sentence with rehabilitative requirements) would allow consolidation of recovery and would better serve rehabilitation.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution accepted the Sentencing Council category (category 3 harm, lower culpability) and that the only aggravating feature was previous convictions; they accepted the Appellant's early guilty plea.
• At sentencing the prosecution did not oppose defence submissions that exceptional circumstances might exist and noted that case delays could assist the Appellant's case.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded from the statutory framework: s.313(1) imposes a custodial term of at least seven years for the relevant offence unless s.313(2)/(2A) exceptional circumstances apply. The Sentencing Council guidelines require that circumstances be truly exceptional such that imposing the minimum would be arbitrary and disproportionate; many mitigating factors, lower culpability factors or a guilty plea will not by themselves be exceptional. The court reviewed the facts of the offending (single small supply to another user, quantities specified) and the Appellant's personal circumstances.

The Appellant's case included a near ten-year gap since earlier drug offending, voluntary and sustained engagement with treatment since 2020, tangible progress on the Buvidal programme (Tier One complete, Tier Two anticipated), supportive reports from The Health Board clinicians and the Addiction Service, settled accommodation until custody, family and neighbour support, and a positive pre-sentence report assessing a low likelihood of reconviction within two years.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the combination of these factors—particularly the well-evidenced, significant progress in recovery since 2023 and the realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community—were of collective weight such that the minimum term would be arbitrary and disproportionate. The Recorder's contrary conclusion was therefore an error of principle. The appellate court also analysed the Sentencing Council factors relevant to suspension and concluded that several indicators favoured suspension (realistic prospect of rehabilitation, not a high risk of reoffending or harm, strong personal mitigation) and none of the listed contrary factors applied.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; ORIGINAL SENTENCE QUASHED

The Court of Appeal quashed the 2,045 day custodial sentence and substituted a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, with a supervision requirement and 10 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days. The court noted it was unnecessary to impose additional punitive elements given time already spent in custody. The direct consequence is that the Appellant will serve no immediate further custodial sentence provided compliance with the suspended sentence order; breach could result in activation of the custodial term. The opinion does not purport to establish any new legal precedent beyond the application of the statutory scheme and Sentencing Council guidance to the facts of this case.