Ilyas, R v

When imposing a custodial sentence, a court must address each stage of the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Definitive Guideline, including whether the sentence can properly be suspended. Punishment and deterrence may weigh against suspension, but they do not displace the required balancing exercise.

Where realistic rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation favour suspension, an immediate custodial sentence may be manifestly excessive. A suspended custodial term will usually match the term that would otherwise have been imposed immediately, subject to the circumstances at the appellate stage.

The appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, driving without insurance, and driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence. He had driven at speed in a residential area while avoiding police, passed a red traffic signal, collided with two vehicles, injured occupants of one vehicle, and fled.

The Crown Court imposed eight months’ detention in a Young Offender Institution and disqualified him from driving. He appealed against sentence, contending that insufficient weight had been given to his mitigation and that any custodial sentence should have been suspended. The central issue was whether the judge had correctly applied the guideline governing the suspension of a custodial sentence.

1. Appeal allowed. The eight-month custodial term was an appropriate immediate term for the dangerous driving and related offending. The Court therefore rejected any challenge to its length as such.

2. The sentencing judge nevertheless adopted the wrong approach to suspension. The Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Definitive Guideline required sequential consideration of: whether the custody threshold had passed; whether custody was unavoidable; the shortest commensurate term; and whether that term could be suspended.

3. The judge had addressed the first three stages but had not given proper effect to the fourth. Her reliance on the deliberate and cynical nature of the offending, and on punishment and deterrence, did not amount to the required assessment of the relevant factors.

4. Only one factor against suspension applied: that punishment could be achieved only by immediate custody. Two factors favouring suspension applied: a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation. Proper application of the guideline therefore required suspension.

5. The Court quashed the eight-month detention order and substituted five months’ detention in a Young Offender Institution, suspended for 12 months. Although a suspended term would usually match the immediate term, the reduction reflected the detention already served. No unpaid-work requirement was imposed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in [2018] EWCA Crim 718. It quashed the immediate eight-month detention order and substituted a suspended sentence.
• Crown Court at Aylesbury: Following committal for sentence after guilty pleas in the Magistrates’ Court, imposed eight months’ detention in a Young Offender Institution and a driving disqualification.