R v Anthony Griffin

The decision whether to suspend a custodial sentence is a balancing exercise. Serious Class A drug offending may justify immediate custody in many cases, but it does not create an inflexible rule against suspension. The court must weigh the seriousness and punishment required against the full range and weight of factors favouring suspension. Exceptionally strong mitigation, together with the other relevant factors, may make immediate custody manifestly excessive and contrary to principle. The appeal was allowed and a 22-month sentence was substituted, suspended for two years.

R v Anthony Griffin concerned an appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Preston to four counts of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and received 22 months’ imprisonment, reduced from 30 months to reflect his guilty plea. The length of the sentence was not challenged. The sole issue was whether it should have been suspended.

The offending involved the appellant driving others on repeated journeys connected with street dealing. The case included unusually strong personal mitigation, a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, family impact, vulnerability to manipulation, and no identified public risk. The central question was whether the Recorder had given disproportionate weight to the seriousness of the offending when deciding that appropriate punishment required immediate custody.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence and substituted 22 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.

1. The issue was suspension rather than the length of the custodial term. The decision whether to suspend required a balancing exercise. The seriousness of the offending and the need for punishment had to be weighed against all the factors favouring suspension.
2. The fact that the offending involved a conspiracy to supply Class A drugs was a very serious factor. In many, and possibly most, cases it might justify immediate custody despite other considerations. It did not, however, establish a blanket rule that a sentence for this type of offending could never be suspended.
3. The appellant had exceptionally strong mitigation. Relevant considerations included his achievements and personal circumstances, the realistic prospect of rehabilitation, the impact on his 16-year-old son, the absence of a history of poor compliance with court orders, and the absence of an identified risk or danger to the public. The psychiatric report did not establish mental illness or impaired judgment, but the wider mitigation remained unusually weighty.
4. Although the Recorder had considered the relevant matters, the conclusion that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody was wrong. The exceptional weight of the mitigation, combined with the engagement of the other factors favouring suspension, made the resulting sentence manifestly excessive and contrary to principle.
5. The substituted sentence was 22 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years. If the appellant committed a further offence during that period, the custodial sentence would likely be brought into operation. No supervision or community orders were imposed because he had already spent roughly the equivalent of ten months in custody.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a 22-month sentence suspended for two years: [2023] EWCA Crim 1111.
2. Crown Court at Preston The appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment on 28 April 2023.