R v Lamar Barley

Suspension is not excluded merely because an offence involves the supply of Class A drugs. The sentencing court must assess the seriousness of the offence together with the other factors relevant to suspension under the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Guideline. Treating immediate custody as the only appropriate punishment for Class A drug supply is an error of principle. A custodial sentence may be suspended where the offender’s age, personal circumstances, prospects of rehabilitation, conduct since the offending and other relevant matters justify that course.

The appellant, aged 20 at sentence and 18 when the offences were committed, pleaded guilty to possession of heroin with intent to supply and being concerned in the supply of cannabis. He received a total sentence of two years’ detention in a young offenders institution.

The sentencing court accepted that he posed no risk or danger to the public, had strong personal mitigation, had a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and had not failed to comply with court orders. It nevertheless refused suspension, principally because it considered immediate custody the only appropriate punishment for supplying Class A drugs. The central issue was whether that approach was an error of principle and whether the sentence should have been suspended.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of immediate imprisonment was quashed and replaced by two years’ detention in a young offenders institution, suspended for 18 months, with requirements of 100 hours’ unpaid work and 10 days of rehabilitation activity.
2. The sentencing judge had erred by treating the supply of Class A drugs as an offence for which only immediate custody was appropriate. The seriousness of the offence had to be weighed with the other factors relevant to suspension under the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Guideline.
3. The relevant circumstances included the appellant’s youth and immaturity, difficult and pressured family background, guilty pleas, absence of previous convictions or cautions, low risk of reoffending, realistic prospect of rehabilitation, employment and law-abiding conduct since the offences. These considerations could justify suspension notwithstanding the seriousness of the offending.
4. In fixing the requirements, the court took account of the appellant’s imprisonment for a little over four months. An electronically monitored curfew would otherwise have been appropriate, but the address in the pre-sentence report had not been verified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2023] EWCA Crim 1514 allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence of immediate imprisonment and substituted a suspended sentence with requirements.
• Crown Court at Luton: On 23 June 2023, the Recorder imposed a total sentence of two years’ detention in a young offenders institution.
• Luton Magistrates’ Court: The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and was committed for sentence.