R v Danielle Estabrook

In sentencing for conspiracy to facilitate illegal entry, each defendant must receive an individual term assessed by culpability and harm. A common starting point for co-defendants is inappropriate. The court should consider deterrence and the relevant circumstances of the offending, followed by aggravating and mitigating factors. A proportionate sentence must account for its effect on family life, particularly children, but that impact does not automatically require suspension or a larger reduction. Where substantial personal and family mitigation is established, the reduction must reflect the evidence. An appellate court may correct a sentence that is manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to facilitate illegal entry and was sentenced by the Crown Court at Canterbury to three years’ imprisonment. She challenged the sentence on the grounds that the judge had used a single starting point for all defendants, failed to reflect her lesser role and mitigation, and sentenced without a pre-sentence report. The central issues were the appropriate individual sentence, the weight to be given to personal and family circumstances, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of three years’ imprisonment and substituted 27 months’ imprisonment. The remaining aspects of the sentence were unchanged.

1. The absence of a pre-sentence report was unfortunate because the court should be properly informed about the offender’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of any affected children. Updated material before the Court of Appeal was adequate, and no adjournment was sought.
2. There was no Sentencing Council Guideline for this offending. R v Le and Stark [1999] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 422 provided general guidance and confirmed the strong policy reasons for deterrent sentences. The relevant factors identified in Attorney General References Nos 49 and 50 of 2015 (R v Bakht) [2015] EWCA Crim 1402, [2016] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 4 were applied.
3. It was wrong to adopt a single starting point for all three defendants. The sentencing judge should first identify an individual term by reference to culpability and harm, and then consider aggravating and mitigating factors. The appropriate term for this appellant before credit was four years, reflecting her essential but lesser role and significant financial reward.
4. Under the approach in R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214, [2013] 1 WLR 1102, proportionality required consideration of both legitimate sentencing aims and the effect of custody on family life, especially children. The appellant’s good character, health, history, delay, remorse, work, and family circumstances justified a one-year reduction. A further reduction was not justified because her son was well cared for and there was no evidence of materially impaired contact with the new baby.
5. After 25% credit for the guilty plea, the appropriate sentence was 27 months. The three-year sentence was therefore manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 405, leave was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the three-year sentence was quashed and replaced with 27 months’ imprisonment.
2. Crown Court at Canterbury: On 16 March 2023, the appellant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.