Berry, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 2 March 2026 the Appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at The City to possession of a Class A drug, cocaine, with intent to supply. On 17 April 2026 the Appellant, who was 18 at the time of the offence and sentencing, was sentenced to 27 months' detention in a young offender institution. The Appellant had no previous convictions but had a youth caution in 2021 and a conditional youth caution in 2024. The police searched the Appellant's home on 9 December 2025 and found 12 wraps of cocaine (street value £390), some empty snap bags and an empty bag smelling of cannabis. The Appellant was arrested on 5 February 2026. His phone analysis included one message referring to "sales" but no messages advertising sales; no cash was seized. The Appellant initially denied the offence, then answered no comment, and later pleaded guilty at the first Crown Court hearing. A detailed pre-sentence report recorded school exclusion, disclosure that the Appellant had sold drugs to friends to fund his own habit but had stopped before the search, a history of mental health difficulties, brief contact with CAMHS, and recommendations for Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) sessions and unpaid work.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence failed to reflect the Appellant's age and lack of maturity.
2. Whether the sentence failed to give appropriate credit for substantial personal mitigation (including lack of previous convictions, remorse, steps to address addiction, difficult background and prospects of training).
3. Whether the sentencing judge gave proper consideration to suspending the sentence.
4. Whether, as a result, the 27‑month custodial sentence was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecution's Arguments

• At sentencing the Prosecution submitted that the Appellant's culpability was at the top end of the lesser role category or the lower end of the significant role category under the Sentencing Council Drug Guideline.

Appellant's Arguments

• The grounds of appeal asserted that no reduction was applied to reflect the Appellant's age, no reduction was applied to reflect mitigation, and no proper consideration was given to suspending the sentence (with the consequence that the 27‑month sentence was manifestly excessive).
• The pre-sentence report material relied on facts including the Appellant's youth, lack of previous convictions, steps taken to address addiction, difficult background and prospects of training.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The judgment, delivered by Judge Brunner, accepted the sentencing judge's categorisation of culpability and the starting point of three years' custody for the relevant category under the Drug Guideline. However, the sentencing remarks at first instance did not address the Appellant's age, maturity or substantial personal mitigation (other than lack of previous convictions). The Court analysed relevant Sentencing Council guidance: the Drug Guideline (mitigating feature of "Age and/or lack of maturity" for ages 18–25), the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (principles relevant to young adults), the Imposition Guideline (emphasis on rehabilitation for young adults and consideration of disadvantaged backgrounds and mental health), and the Guideline on Offenders with mental disorders (individualised approach; effect of custody on offenders with impairments).

Applying those guidelines to the facts, the Court (i) accepted the three‑year starting point, (ii) made a significant reduction to reflect the Appellant's age and lack of maturity, (iii) made a further reduction for substantial personal mitigation (lack of previous convictions, remorse, steps to address addiction, difficult background and training prospects), and (iv) concluded that mental health/developmental issues were not shown to be causally linked to the offending (so did not reduce culpability) but were relevant to the likely impact of custody and vulnerability in detention. The Court concluded that the offence nonetheless crossed the custody threshold but that a lower custodial term was appropriate, and that suspension was appropriate given prospects of rehabilitation and absence of factors militating against suspension under the Imposition Guideline.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED

Direct effect: the Court granted leave to appeal, quashed the 27‑month detention order, and substituted a sentence of 18 months' detention in a young offender institution, suspended for 12 months from the date of sentence. The sentence includes 15 RAR sessions and 100 hours of unpaid work (adjusted to account for time spent in detention). Ancillary orders remain in force. The opinion states no new precedent was established; the decision applies sentencing principles and relevant Sentencing Council guidance to reduce and suspend the custodial element given the Appellant's age, mitigation and prospects of rehabilitation.