Jamous, R. v

Before imposing a custodial sentence, a court must ordinarily obtain and consider a pre-sentence report before deciding that custody is justified and fixing its length. The requirement does not apply where the court reasonably considers a report unnecessary, and an omission does not itself invalidate a custodial sentence.

An appellate court will not interfere merely because a report might have addressed suitability for a non-custodial sentence. It will uphold a sentence where the judge correctly applies the sentencing guideline, evaluates culpability and mitigation, and reaches a sentence that is neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. Suspension remains a discretionary sentencing decision.

Following a jury trial at the Crown Court at Isleworth, the appellant was convicted of possessing criminal property contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. He had allowed his bank account to receive proceeds of a fraud and had assisted their withdrawal and dissipation through casino gambling.

The judge refused an adjournment for a pre-sentence report and imposed 15 months’ immediate imprisonment. The appellant appealed with leave, contending that a report should have been obtained and that, given his good character and asserted limited role, the sentence should have been shorter and suspended.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled to impose an immediate custodial sentence of 15 months.

2. Under sections 156(3)(a) and (4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a court ordinarily must obtain and consider a pre-sentence report before forming the opinions required by sections 152(2) and 153(2). The statutory exception applies where, in the circumstances, the court considers a report unnecessary. Section 156(6) also provides that failure to obtain a report does not invalidate a custodial sentence.

3. The sentencing judge had sufficient information about the appellant and the offending to conclude that a report was unnecessary. The subsequently obtained pre-appeal report added little to the assessment of either his personal circumstances or his role. Its assessment that unpaid work might be suitable was expressly conditional upon a community penalty being appropriate.

4. The judge was entitled to assess the offending as medium culpability under the applicable money-laundering guideline. There was no evidence of coercion, intimidation or exploitation. By lending his account and actively making withdrawals, the appellant facilitated both the fraud’s proceeds entering the account and their rapid dissipation. His gambling with some of the suspected proceeds also undermined the assertion that his role and personal gain were limited.

5. The starting point accorded with the guideline, and the judge had given credit for good character and the available mitigation. The resulting term was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. Whether to suspend a custodial sentence was a discretionary matter with which the Court of Appeal would rarely interfere; this was not a sentence bound to be suspended.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2015] EWCA Crim 1720, dismissed the appellant’s sentence appeal.

• Crown Court at Isleworth: Following jury trial, convicted the appellant of possessing criminal property and imposed 15 months’ imprisonment.