R v Chloe Ann Callow (aka Gough)

A suspended sentence is a different type of penalty from a community order. It should not be imposed unless no suitable non-custodial sentence is available.

Where a sentencing judge imposes custody, including suspended custody, outside the agreed guideline category and range, the judge must explain why the custody threshold is passed. A court should assess whether a community order with requirements directed to the causes of the offending provides a sufficient and proportionate response.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Chester to two assaults on police officers attending a domestic incident. She acted while intoxicated and experiencing mental health difficulties. The offences were agreed to fall within Category 2B of the applicable Magistrates’ Court sentencing guideline, whose range did not include custody.

On 11 April 2022, the Crown Court imposed four months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with alcohol-treatment and rehabilitation-activity requirements. The appellant appealed on the basis that the custody threshold was not crossed and that an equivalent community order was sufficient.

1. Appeal allowed. The suspended sentence order was quashed and replaced with an 18-month community order containing the same alcohol-treatment and rehabilitation-activity requirements.
2. The sentencing judge was required to explain why the custody threshold had been crossed. That explanation was particularly necessary because the agreed categorisation of the offences and the relevant guideline range did not encompass a custodial sentence, even one suspended.
3. A suspended sentence is not simply a more onerous penalty of the same type as a community order. It is a different form of penalty and should not be imposed unless no suitable non-custodial sentence is available.
4. A financial penalty had not deterred the appellant from further similar offending. The appropriate next question was therefore whether a community order could address the identified causes of the offending. Her mental health difficulties and intoxication lay behind the assaults, and the treatment and rehabilitation requirements were directed to those problems.
5. Those requirements had been receiving some success and could be imposed through a community order. Such an order better reflected the appellant’s culpability and the applicable sentencing guidance. The suspended sentence was unnecessary and manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal in [2022] EWCA Crim 1619, quashed the suspended sentence order, and substituted an 18-month community order with identical requirements.
• Crown Court at Chester: On 11 April 2022, imposed four months’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months, with an alcohol-treatment requirement and a 35-day rehabilitation-activity requirement.