Cassanova, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 21, pleaded guilty in the magistrates' court to one offence of being concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of a Class B drug, contrary to section 170(2), (3) and (4) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. He was committed for sentence and, on 21 March 2026, appeared before Judge Darlow in the Crown Court at The City. The Appellant had returned from travel to The City in possession of two suitcases from which bag tags had been removed and placed in his pockets; the suitcases contained vacuum-packed cannabis with a total net weight of 24 kilograms (estimated street value up to £720,000). He made no comment in interview and pleaded guilty at his first appearance.

On 21 March 2026 the Crown Court sentenced the Appellant to 16 months' imprisonment, made consequential orders including forfeiture and destruction of the drugs, and imposed a Foreign Travel Restriction Order under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The Appellant obtained leave to appeal against sentence and the appeal was heard by The Court on 19 May 2026 before Judge Popplewell, Judge Goose and Judge Saini.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Recorder took an incorrect starting point of two years' imprisonment before allowance for the guilty plea.
2. Whether the Recorder failed to give sufficient weight to mitigation (age, lack of previous convictions, remorse, employment/study, and character references) when determining the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point of two years before guilty plea discount was incorrect.
• The Recorder failed to give adequate weight to mitigation (Appellant's youth, absence of previous convictions, remorse, working and studying, and character references), resulting in an excessive sentence; the appropriate sentence would have been 18 months before guilty plea discount.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reviewed the Recorder's application of the Drugs Guideline. The Recorder had identified that the offending fell between category 2 and category 3 harm and involved elements of both significant and lesser roles in culpability. The Recorder adopted category 3 harm with a significant role but applied a downward adjustment for lesser role features. The Recorder used a starting point of two years' imprisonment for a category 3 significant role, adjusted upwards to reflect the greater quantity imported (24 kg v an indicative 6 kg for category 3) and then applied reductions to reflect lesser role features and mitigation. That produced a sentence of two years before allowance for the guilty plea, which was reduced by one third to 16 months.

The Court concluded that the Recorder had in fact taken mitigation into account and that the sentencing process was properly undertaken: the increase to reflect higher harm and the downward adjustment for lesser role did not demonstrate a failure to consider mitigation. The Court was not persuaded that the resultant sentence was either arrived at in error or was excessive. The Recorder's refusal to suspend the sentence was not criticised and had been considered in accordance with the relevant imposition guideline.

Separately, the Court addressed the Foreign Travel Restriction Order imposed for 12 months to commence on the date of release. The Court found that a 12 month order was less than the statutory minimum of two years contained in section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and was therefore unlawful. The Court explained it could not increase the term to make it lawful because doing so would impermissibly increase the punitive element contrary to section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, and so the order had to be quashed.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED (in part)

Holding: The Court dismissed the appeal against sentence and confirmed the custodial sentence of 16 months' imprisonment. The Foreign Travel Restriction Order of 12 months was quashed as unlawful.

Implications: The direct effect is that the sentence and the consequential orders other than the Foreign Travel Restriction Order remain in force. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.

This summary is based exclusively on the provided opinion. Company A certified the transcript in the original document.