Saffa, R. v

A sentencing judge need not give expansive reasons, but must engage adequately with the major elements of the sentencing exercise. This includes explaining the applicable guideline category, any adjustment from its starting point, credit for a guilty plea, and the treatment of material mitigation.

Where an offender’s lesser role in cannabis production is placed in Category 2, a sentence above the guideline starting point requires a proper basis. Previous good character may justify a downward adjustment. A failure to explain these matters may support a finding that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court to producing cannabis, contrary to section 4(2)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Police had found 72 mature cannabis plants and growing equipment at the house where he was living.

His accepted basis of plea was that he had entered the United Kingdom unlawfully, had been required to water the plants to repay those who brought him here, and had acted through exploitation. He had no role in bypassing the electricity meter. The sentencing judge treated him as having a Lesser Role in Category 2 and imposed 12 months’ imprisonment.

On an appeal against sentence, the issue was whether that sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the inadequate sentencing reasons, the guideline starting point, his good character and his guilty plea.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent of sentence. The sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with six months’ imprisonment.

2. The judge’s reasons were excessively brief. Although a judge need not give expansive sentencing remarks, the judge had to engage adequately with the major parts of the exercise. He did not explain why the offence fell within Category 2, what guilty-plea credit was allowed, or why an upward adjustment from the starting point was justified. Nor did he adequately explain why the appellant’s awareness of the scale of the operation outweighed his previous good character.

3. There was no proper basis for a sentence above the 12-month starting point for a Category 2, Lesser Role offence. A downward adjustment should have reflected the appellant’s good character. Eight months before plea credit was just and proportionate. Applying a 25 per cent discount for the plea entered at the PTPH produced a sentence of six months.

4. The court also noted that section 52 of the Sentencing Act 2020 required the judge to explain the effect of the sentence in ordinary language. The judge had not done so, although that omission alone would not have caused the appeal to be allowed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted six months’ imprisonment: [2021] EWCA Crim 661.
• Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street: The appellant pleaded guilty on 5 January 2021. On 19 January 2021, HHJ Edwards imposed 12 months’ imprisonment.