Shabab, R v

In sentencing for bringing drugs or mobile telephones into prison, a court should have regard to the relevant drugs guideline but must not apply it automatically or mechanically. The prison context, the nature of the supply and the need for deterrence are material. Drugs and phones are especially harmful within prison because they can operate as currency, facilitate crime, and undermine authority and discipline. A deterrent custodial sentence may therefore properly exceed the range indicated by the drugs guideline when the offender is a sophisticated and experienced criminal abusing the prison system.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Kingston upon Thames Crown Court to bringing cannabis, a List A article, and mobile phones, List B articles, into HMP Wandsworth. The offences were contrary to sections 40B(1) and 40C(1)(a) of the Prison Act 1952.

He passed the items to his imprisoned cousin during a visit. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment after allowing full credit for the guilty pleas. The appellant appealed, contending that the judge should have treated the Sentencing Council drug guideline as fixing a materially lower sentencing range.

1. Appeal dismissed. The concurrent total of 12 months’ imprisonment was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The court accepted that the relevant sentencing guidelines should be considered. They were not, however, to be applied automatically or over-mechanistically. As stated in R v Hamilton, [2016] EWCA 78, sentencing required regard to the particular context of supply into prison, the nature of that supply, and deterrence.

3. R v Ormiston, [2016] EWCA Crim 363, illustrated why prison supply has particular gravity. Drugs and mobile phones have great value in prison, where they may be used as currency, for intimidation, or to facilitate further offending. Sentences must reflect the threat that such conduct poses to prison discipline and the rule of law.

4. The appellant had recently left custody and sought to introduce both drugs and phones. He was properly treated as a sophisticated and experienced criminal abusing the system, rather than as a hard-pressed family member. Even considering the drugs guideline in relation to the cannabis alone, the judge was entitled to impose a substantially higher sentence for the overall criminality and the appellant’s offending history.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the sentence appeal in [2018] EWCA Crim 3021.

• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: on 29 November 2017, imposed concurrent sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to bringing prohibited articles into prison.