- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Fairfield, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal against sentence brought by leave of the Single Judge. The Appellant (aged 53) pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court on 17 October 2025 to non-domestic burglary and to possessing and cultivating cannabis, and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. On 2 February 2026 the Appellant was sentenced by Judge Nicholson in the Crown Court at The City to 16 months' immediate imprisonment for burglary, with concurrent sentences of one month for each of the cannabis offences. The sole ground of appeal was that the sentence should have been suspended.
The burglary was committed on 30 July 2024 amid large-scale public disorder in The Town. The Appellant was captured on CCTV inside Shop A taking a crate of beer and leaving the shop carrying the items. Police identified the Appellant from CCTV (including a scar on his head) and, on 10 September 2025, searched his home and found a quantity of cannabis and seven cannabis plants; clothing and footwear worn during the incident were seized. The Appellant admitted taking the crate and pleaded guilty at first appearance, receiving one-third credit for the plea.
There was a pre-sentence report recommending a community order with a rehabilitation activity requirement and a consultant psychiatrist's report describing a history of recurring depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, epilepsy (stable with medication), cognitive impairment and a period of acute deterioration after the Magistrates' Court appearance that resulted in detention under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The psychiatrist opined that a prison disposal would probably be detrimental. An addendum pre-sentence report of 27 January 2026 described active community mental health support and maintained the probation recommendation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence of immediate custody of 16 months imposed for the burglary should have been suspended.
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in the application of the Mental Health guideline and the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences guideline in deciding against suspension.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Counsel (Attorney Beesley) submitted that, given the clear recommendations in the pre-sentence report and the psychiatric report, custody was not the right environment for the Appellant because of his mental instability and vulnerability, and that a suspended sentence order should have been imposed.
- It was submitted that the sentencing judge paid insufficient attention to the Mental Health guideline and the Imposition guideline and that those factors should have weighed in favour of suspension.
- Counsel accepted the offence properly fell within category B1 of the Burglary guideline but argued for the exceptional course of suspension on grounds of personal mitigation and vulnerability.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Tharmaratnam [2017] EWCA Crim 887; [2017] 2 Cr App R (S) 36 | Standard of appellate intervention in sentence appeals—court will only interfere where the sentencing judge's decision is plainly wrong in principle or results in a manifestly excessive sentence. | The Court relied on this authority to state the high threshold for overturning a sentencing judge's decision not to suspend custody. |
| R v Hussain [2019] EWCA Crim 1542; [2020] 1 Cr App R (S) 32 | Affirmation of the appellate standard for interference with sentencing decisions. | The Court cited this case alongside Tharmaratnam to support the proposition that it should not substitute its own view of the weight of factors except where plainly wrong or manifestly excessive. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reviewed the sentencing judge's detailed remarks, the factual context of the offence (lootings during serious public disorder in The Town), and the CCTV evidence showing the Appellant participating in looting of Shop A. The Court acknowledged the Appellant's mental health history and accepted that this amounted to strong personal mitigation. It observed that the sentencing judge had regard to the Burglary guideline (placing the offence in category B1), applied the appropriate starting point and discount for guilty plea, and considered the Mental Health and Imposition guidelines in that exercise.
The Court explained the required approach under the Imposition guideline: weigh factors for and against suspension, recognising that factors carry different weights and that a single factor against suspension may outweigh multiple factors in favour. Applying that approach, the sentencing judge concluded that the seriousness of the offence in its proper context (including the wider rioting and the need for punishment, deterrence and protection of the public) outweighed the Appellant's personal mitigation.
The Court applied the established appellate standard (as cited in R v Tharmaratnam and R v Hussain) and concluded that the judge's decision not to suspend was not plainly wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The Court therefore declined to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the sentencing judge.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED.
Holding: The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentencing judge's decision to impose immediate custody of 16 months for the burglary (with concurrent one-month sentences for the cannabis offences) stands.
Implications: The decision affirms the sentencing judge's application of the Burglary, Mental Health and Imposition guidelines in the particular factual context and reiterates the high appellate threshold for overturning a sentencing judge's exercise of discretion; no new precedent was created. The direct effect is that the Appellant's immediate custodial sentence remains in force.
Alert