McDade, R. v

When a prison officer or employee is corrupted into breaching security or supplying prohibited items, deterrence has a prominent role in sentence. The conduct undermines prison order and safety, harms compliant prisoners and staff, and can enable serious offenders to continue criminal activity within custody.

Substantial custodial sentences are therefore appropriate. Sentences of up to ten years after conviction may be justified where prison officers supply drugs or similar items for personal gain. Sentence must nevertheless reflect totality and personal mitigation, including vulnerability, pressure from prisoners, limited experience, a guilty plea and delay.

These conjoined sentence appeals concerned two women formerly employed in the prison service.

McDade pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office arising from an inappropriate intimate relationship with a prisoner under her care, and to conveying three mobile telephones into a prison after leaving her post. She received consecutive sentences totalling 30 months’ imprisonment.

Reynolds, an operational support grade employee at a maximum-security prison, pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office and possessing heroin and cannabis with intent to supply. She had brought mobile telephones and drugs into the prison for inmates after becoming vulnerable to pressure and threats. She received seven years’ imprisonment.

The central issue was the appropriate sentencing level for prison staff corrupted into compromising prison security and supplying prohibited items.

1. McDade’s appeal was dismissed. Reynolds’s appeal was allowed in part. The court held that corruption of prison staff was particularly serious because it enabled the defeat of prison security, endangered order and safety within the establishment, and supported the continuing criminal influence of dominant prisoners.

2. The deterrent purpose of sentence under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 142(1)(b), accordingly had a prominent role. Earlier sentencing decisions, including [2007] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 44, illustrated that lengthy sentences could be justified for prison staff who introduced drugs and mobile telephones into custody.

3. For prison officers committing such offences for personal gain, sentences of up to ten years following conviction could be entirely appropriate. The context of offending inside a prison materially increased its gravity. Heroin in a quantity beyond personal use could establish its recipient as a dealer within the prison.

4. McDade’s aggregate 30-month sentence was not arguably excessive. It was merciful when viewed in totality. The sentencing judge had properly imposed a consciously compassionate sentence, principally because of the separation of McDade from her very young child. Her personal mitigation did not remove the need for custody and deterrence.

5. Reynolds’s seven-year concurrent sentences required reduction. Her junior position, inexperience, extreme vulnerability, the pressure she found difficult to resist, guilty plea and delay materially reduced culpability. The court quashed the seven-year sentences on counts 1 and 2 and substituted concurrent sentences of five years and six months’ imprisonment. That remained a substantial custodial sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — McDade’s sentence appeal was dismissed. Reynolds’s sentence appeal was allowed to the extent that her total sentence was reduced from seven years to five years and six months.
• Crown Court — McDade was sentenced on 13 November 2009 by His Honour Judge Tyrer DL to 30 months’ imprisonment. Reynolds was sentenced at Worcester Crown Court on 7 December 2009 by His Honour Judge McCreath, Recorder of Worcester, to seven years’ imprisonment.