Townsend, R. v

A pre-sentence report is not required merely to repeat mitigation which a defendant can provide through an advocate. Its proper function is to assist with a realistic alternative to custody, dangerousness, or a specific matter within probation expertise.

Where the offence and the offender’s role make an immediate custodial sentence unavoidable, a sentencing judge may proceed without a report. A drug rehabilitation requirement under section 209 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 can provide an alternative to a short or moderate custodial term only where there is a sufficient prospect of success. On an appeal against sentence, the court assesses whether the sentence imposed at the time was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

Luke Lewis Townsend pleaded guilty in the Suffolk Magistrates’ Court to supplying a Class A controlled drug, contrary to section 4(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was committed to the Crown Court at Ipswich for sentence.

The Crown Court sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. It treated him as having a significant role in category 3 street dealing and declined to adjourn for a pre-sentence report. His application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the full court because of his age, vulnerability, and the absence of a report.

The issue was whether the sentencing judge should have obtained a pre-sentence report and whether the sentence was arguably wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused. The three-year sentence was neither arguably wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The court held that the Crown Court was entitled to sentence without obtaining a pre-sentence report. The applicable guidance limited reports following committal for sentence to cases in which there was a realistic alternative to custody, a dangerousness assessment was required, or another appropriate reason existed. Supplying Class A drugs was among the offences for which a report would not usually be appropriate.

3. A defendant’s mitigation is principally for the litigator and advocate to obtain and present. Placing the same account in a pre-sentence report does not give it greater weight. Probation’s role is to advise on a realistic non-custodial option, dangerousness, or matters within its particular expertise.

4. On the judge’s proper finding that the applicant had a significant role in category 3 street dealing, an immediate custodial sentence was inevitable and could not be suspended. A drug rehabilitation requirement under section 209 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 could have been an alternative only if there were a sufficient prospect of success. The applicant’s earlier non-compliance with such a requirement and other community orders, alongside continuing drug use, provided no basis for that conclusion.

5. The judge was also entitled to reject the asserted duress and lesser-role submissions on the evidence then available. The later report did not undermine the conclusion that the applicant’s role was significant. The judge did not aggravate the sentence for previous convictions and allowed full credit for the guilty plea.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Ipswich: sentenced the applicant on 19 October 2017 to three years’ imprisonment after committal for sentence.
• Suffolk Magistrates’ Court: accepted the applicant’s guilty plea and committed him to the Crown Court for sentence.