Sallis, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 20 January 2026 at The Court, the Appellant (then aged 27) was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment for conspiracy to convey a List A article into prison, contrary to s.1(1)(a) Criminal Law Act 1977. With the single judge's leave, the Appellant appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The conspiracy involved the Appellant, a serving prison officer (referred to in the judgment as a Defendant who was a prison officer), and a serving prisoner (referred to as a Defendant who was a prisoner). The plan was for the Appellant to supply the illegal drug "Spice" by soaking it onto envelopes to be posted or otherwise delivered into The Prison. Evidence of the Appellant's involvement relied in particular on phone call transcripts from 4–6 September 2022.

No drugs were in fact delivered into The Prison. The trial judge found this was because a postal strike prevented posting and because the Appellant ceased active participation from 6 September 2022, the judge considering that withdrawal resulted from dissatisfaction about price rather than a change of conscience. The judge found the Appellant's active involvement lasted about two days and that no infused envelopes were ever created.

The co-defendant prisoner pleaded guilty; the Appellant and the prison officer were convicted after trial. The prison officer was also convicted of misconduct in public office on two counts.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the 30‑month immediate custodial sentence imposed on the Appellant was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the trial judge was wrong to place the Appellant's sentence near the top of the category range given the short duration of her involvement and the absence of any drugs actually entering The Prison.
3. Whether the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the Appellant's personal mitigation such that a reduced sentence (potentially permitting suspension) should have been imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant's Attorney submitted the sentence was excessive because the Appellant's participation was brief (about two days), no drugs were conveyed into The Prison, and after withdrawal the conspiracy proceeded with another supplier, showing limited culpability.
• It was submitted that the judge placed the sentence near the top of the category range contrary to the facts of brevity and non‑completion, and failed sufficiently to weight significant personal mitigation (history of trauma, homelessness, mental health issues, abstinence from illegal drugs, successful completion of a prior Community Order), such that a sentence not exceeding two years should have been imposed and, given the Appellant's circumstances and the effect of prison on women, it should have been suspended.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Soole noted that offences involving conveying drugs into prisons require deterrent sentences and that, although there was no definitive guideline for the particular offence, the court should proceed by reference to the definitive guideline for the supply of Class B drugs (which includes Spice).

The judge identified the offending as falling within significant role culpability and category 3 harm under the analogous guideline, giving a starting point of 12 months' custody and a range of 6 months to 3 years. He considered that, for conspiracy of this type, a substantial upward adjustment from the category starting point was necessary because of the need for deterrence in relation to prison offences, and he placed the offending at or near the top of the category range despite no drugs actually entering The Prison.

In relation to the Appellant specifically, the trial judge took account of: prior convictions (but did not treat them as aggravating); the brevity of participation; the reasons for withdrawal (finding withdrawal was due to dissatisfaction about price rather than conscience); the absence of practical participation; the PSR; and a psychiatric report describing vulnerability stemming from trauma and recommending therapy. The judge concluded that the least sentence he could impose was 30 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the Court gave careful consideration to the personal mitigation and the comparative sentences of the co‑defendants. The Court concluded that the Appellant's personal mitigation was of strictly limited weight in the context of this offence, that the Appellant's intended role was crucial to the plan, and that there was no unfair disparity with co‑defendants' sentences. The Court therefore was not persuaded the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court further stated that even if it had reduced the sentence to a length that would permit consideration of suspension, the gravity of the offence and deterrent considerations would still have compelled an immediate custodial sentence.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Direct effect: the trial judge's sentence of 30 months' immediate imprisonment for the Appellant remains in force. The Court did not set any new precedent; it applied established sentencing principles (deterrence for prison‑related drug offences and reference to the Class B drugs guideline by analogy) and found the trial judge's overall assessment and sentence were not manifestly excessive. The Court noted positive progress by the Appellant in custody but maintained the custodial sentence.