R v Creddick Price

Whether to suspend a custodial sentence is a judgmental exercise. Sentencing guidelines identify relevant factors, but those factors cannot be reduced to an arithmetical tally because they are incommensurable. The sentencing judge must weigh the competing considerations in the particular case. An appellate court should not interfere lightly. An appeal against refusal to suspend succeeds only where the decision is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Repeated offending after earlier offending was detected may justify immediate custody despite substantial mitigating considerations.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Great Grimsby to two counts of concealing criminal property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. He received concurrent sentences of three and nine months’ imprisonment. The offences involved cash earned from gardening work and undeclared income. The sentencing judge declined to suspend the sentences, although the appellant was assessed as presenting a low risk of reoffending and had taken steps to obtain professional help. With leave, the appellant appealed solely against the refusal to suspend the sentences.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The court proceeded on the agreed basis that the appellant’s direct benefit from cheating the Revenue was the tax avoided, rather than his whole earnings. Applying section 340(3)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the words “in whole or in part” meant that all the cash found could constitute criminal property. The point was not challenged on the appeal: see R v KI [2007] 1 WLR 2262, para 21.

2. The decision whether to suspend a custodial sentence is not an arithmetical exercise. The guideline identifies relevant factors, but the competing considerations are incommensurable. Their relative weight is a matter of judgment for the sentencing judge.

3. The Court of Appeal will not lightly interfere with that judgment. An appellant must show that the refusal to suspend was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

4. There were strong arguments for suspension, including delay, the absence of further offending, rehabilitation steps, illiteracy, the appellant’s lack of previous imprisonment, prison conditions and the impact on his family. However, there were also strong arguments for immediate custody, particularly the repetition of the offending in 2020 after the earlier offending had been detected. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that appropriate punishment required immediate custody. The decision was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave having been granted by a single judge, the appeal against the refusal to suspend the sentences was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Great Grimsby: On 21 April 2023, following guilty pleas, the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of three and nine months’ imprisonment.