Reid, R. v

A court may dispense with a pre-sentence report under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 156(4), only where obtaining one is unnecessary. A belief that immediate custody is inevitable does not suffice. The report may bear both on whether the statutory custody threshold is met and on the shortest commensurate term.

A substantial gap in an offender’s history may make a report necessary. When adjourning for a report, the court should make clear that every sentencing option, including custody, remains open.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Stafford Crown Court to two offences of handling stolen goods. The Recorder imposed consecutive sentences totalling 16 months’ imprisonment. The pleas were entered on the trial date, on bases accepted by the prosecution which did not allege that the appellant had committed either burglary.

The Recorder refused an adjournment for a pre-sentence report, considering custody inevitable. The appellant appealed against sentence with leave of the single judge. The Court of Appeal first adjourned the appeal to obtain a pre-appeal report, which addressed a lengthy gap in offending, personal circumstances, employment prospects and the risk of reoffending.

The central issue was whether the Recorder should have obtained a pre-sentence report and, if so, the proper substituted sentence.

Appeal allowed. The court set aside the total sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment and substituted a community order.

1. Under section 156(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, an adult offender’s pre-sentence report may be dispensed with only where it is unnecessary. The Recorder should have obtained one. The appellant’s lengthy interval without domestic convictions was a particular factor requiring an assessment.

2. The conclusion that custody was inevitable did not justify refusing a report. Before imprisonment can be imposed, section 152(2) requires the court to find that the offence is so serious that neither a fine nor a community sentence is justified. If custody is justified, section 153(2) requires the shortest commensurate term. The reporting requirement in section 156(3) informs both stages.

3. An adjournment for a report does not improperly raise expectations. The defendant can be told that all sentencing options, including immediate custody, remain available.

4. Although consecutive sentences were permissible because the goods derived from separate burglaries, the total term was excessive. On the original material, an appropriate custodial total would have been no more than nine to ten months. Having obtained the report and considered the three months already served, the court adopted its recommendation of a community order.

5. The substituted order imposed 18 months’ supervision and completion of the Think First Programme at the specified probation location or another directed by the responsible officer.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a community order: [2008] EWCA Crim 1257.
• Crown Court at Stafford: The Recorder sentenced the appellant to consecutive terms totalling 16 months’ imprisonment for two offences of handling stolen goods.