R v Joshua Robert Long

A sentencing guideline on suspended sentences is not inflexible and does not require an arithmetical relationship between the custodial term and the operational period. Deterrence may justify suspending a short custodial term for a substantially longer period, including the maximum available, where the circumstances warrant it.

However, when fixing the operational period, the sentencing court must give proper weight to substantial good conduct and demonstrated reform during an unusually long period between offending and sentence. An appellate court will accord particular respect to a court martial’s assessment of the service context, but may vary sentence where that material consideration has not been given sufficient weight.

The appellant, an able seaman in the Royal Navy, pleaded guilty before a court martial to being absent without leave while his ship was operationally deployed in Bahrain. The court martial imposed seven days’ service detention, reduced for the early guilty plea, and suspended it for 12 months.

The appellant accepted that a custodial sentence and its length were proper. He challenged only the length of the operational period. He contended that it was disproportionate to the seven-day term and that the court martial had insufficiently credited his good conduct during the approximately 12 months between the offence and sentence.

The central issue was whether the 12-month operational period was excessive or wrong in principle in light of the service context, deterrence, and the appellant’s subsequent reform.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of seven days’ service detention suspended for 12 months and substituted seven days’ service detention suspended for eight months.

2. The sentencing guideline did not impose an inflexible or arithmetical requirement that the operational period correspond to the length of the custodial term. Deterrence was a legitimate sentencing consideration. Accordingly, a short period of service detention could properly be suspended for a much longer operational period, including the maximum available, where the circumstances justified that approach. The court martial had not erred in principle, nor imposed a manifestly excessive sentence, by adopting that approach in this case.

3. The court nevertheless accepted that insufficient weight had been given to the unusually long delay between the offence and sentence and to the appellant’s good conduct throughout that period. The purpose of suspension included deterring further misconduct and encouraging rehabilitation. The appellant had already shown meaningful reform by avoiding further disciplinary trouble for about a year despite his adverse record and difficult service conditions.

4. The court reaffirmed that an appellate court is slow to interfere with a court martial’s sentencing decision and must give particular respect to its specialist assessment of military context, following R v Ashworth [2019] EWCA Crim 1737. That deference did not remove the need to make an appropriate allowance for demonstrated reform. A reduction of the operational period to eight months was therefore required.

• Court Martial Appeal Court: Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted seven days’ service detention suspended for eight months.

• Court martial, Military Court Centre at Catterick: Following a guilty plea to being absent without leave, imposed seven days’ service detention suspended for 12 months after slip-rule hearings reduced the original operational period.