R v Sophie Thompson

When assessing culpability for street-level Class A drug supply, the court must consider the accepted facts as a whole. The presence of some significant-role features does not require sentencing in the significant-role category where lesser-role features, including coercion, limited agency, lack of management responsibility and absence of significant financial advantage, predominate.

Where custody interferes with family life, proportionality must be assessed against the legitimate aims of sentencing. The impact on very young children is a major consideration. If custody is unavoidable, its effect on family relationships may substantially mitigate the sentence length. Sentencing courts should obtain sufficient information about the likely impact on the child and family, including care arrangements.

The appellant appealed against a sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Isleworth for offences involving the supply and possession of heroin and cocaine. She had pleaded guilty on an accepted basis that she had dealt drugs under threats from a former partner.

She was 24 and six months pregnant when arrested and gave birth before sentence. The Recorder treated her role as between lesser and significant, assessed the applicable sentence after trial at four years and six months, and imposed 38 months after credit for her guilty pleas.

The appeal challenged the categorisation of her role, the weight given to her previous convictions, the treatment of her personal mitigation and the absence of a pre-sentence report.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed. The sentences of 38 months’ imprisonment on counts 1, 2 and 7 were quashed and concurrent terms of 30 months were substituted. The sentences for simple possession on counts 4 and 6 were unaffected.
2. Role and culpability. The appellant’s role was not unqualifiedly lesser. She and her co-defendant had operated the drug line for more than two months, jointly possessed several phones, and held crack cocaine ready for supply. She had awareness of the nature and scale of the operation and performed an operational intermediary role. However, the lesser-role features were substantially more prominent. She had no management function, acted as a limited agent under strict instructions, was motivated by fear of her former partner and had no influence over him. There was no adequate basis for finding that she expected a significant financial or other advantage. An uplift from the three-year starting point for category 3 lesser role was justified, but the facts did not justify four and a half years, the top of that range and the starting point for significant role.
3. Antecedents and mitigation. The only relevant previous conviction was for simple possession of Class A drugs more than four years before the present offending. Although the appellant’s previous violent offending was serious, it should not have been treated as a weighty aggravating feature of this case. The modest aggravating effect of her antecedents was comfortably outweighed by her personal mitigation, particularly the effect of custody on her infant child and their relationship.
4. Family life and information for sentence. Applying the principles identified in R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214; [2013] 1 WLR 1102, the key question was proportionality to the legitimate aims of sentencing. The impact on very young children was a major consideration. The sentencing court should be informed about the likely effect on family life. Where custody cannot proportionately be avoided, that effect may mitigate the sentence length. Immediate custody was necessary because of the seriousness of Class A drug offending, but 54 months would have been disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The absence of a pre-sentence report was regrettable. Where a pregnant woman or recent mother is to be sentenced, such a report is desirable even where immediate custody appears inevitable, so that the court can assess the likely impact on the child and family and the care arrangements.
5. Sentence. The appropriate sentence after trial was 40 months. After the reduction for the guilty pleas, the appropriate sentence was 30 months’ imprisonment.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 16 August 2024, the appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentences on counts 1, 2 and 7 were quashed and concurrent terms of 30 months’ imprisonment substituted; the sentences on counts 4 and 6 remained unchanged.
2. Crown Court at Isleworth: On 13 March 2024, Mr Recorder Krepski imposed concurrent sentences of 38 months’ imprisonment on counts 1, 2 and 7, and concurrent sentences of nine weeks’ imprisonment on counts 4 and 6.