Maya Tiger Leelee Bassaragh v R

Departure from a statutory minimum sentence requires truly exceptional circumstances. The court must consider the offence and offender together and ask whether the minimum would be arbitrary and disproportionate, while preserving deterrence. Ordinary mitigation, a guilty plea, weapon category or multiple factors alone do not suffice. Properly evidenced individual medical risks in custody are relevant. Pregnancy is not automatically exceptional; its significance depends on its particular impact, combined with the total mitigation and the interests of the unborn child. If exceptional circumstances are established, the court must impose an appropriate shorter custodial or alternative sentence. Guideline ranges are aids, not automatically applicable.

The appellant appealed against a sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court at Woolwich on 15 June 2023 for possession of a prohibited firearm, with a concurrent sentence for possession of ammunition. The statutory minimum provisions applied. At sentence, neither the appellant nor the court knew that she was pregnant. Fresh medical and factual evidence was admitted on appeal. The central issue was whether the pregnancy, its particular medical risks in custody, and the appellant’s other personal mitigation constituted exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the statutory minimum and, if so, suspension of the sentence.

Appeal allowed.

1. Procedure and fresh evidence. The court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal. It admitted evidence establishing that the appellant had been pregnant at sentence and detailing the particular risks of the pregnancy.
2. Exceptional circumstances. Under section 311 and Schedule 20 of the Sentencing Code, the court had to consider the particular circumstances of the offence and offender together. The ultimate question was whether imposing the statutory minimum would produce an arbitrary and disproportionate sentence. The circumstances had to be truly exceptional, and the deterrent purpose of minimum sentences could not be undermined by readily departing from them. A single striking factor might suffice, but ordinary mitigating factors, a guilty plea or their accumulation did not do so by themselves.
3. Relevant medical evidence. Medical unfitness to serve custody, or significant physical or mental health risks particular to the offender and caused by the minimum term, were relevant offender circumstances where properly evidenced. General risks associated with pregnancy in prison were context only; the assessment required close attention to the individual pregnancy.
4. Sentencing after the exception is established. The court had to impose either a shorter custodial sentence or an alternative sentence, with the guilty-plea reduction applying normally. It would usually be necessary to identify the sentence that would have been imposed without the statutory minimum and to treat the relevant circumstances as personal mitigation. The Culpability A ranges in Table 2 could assist, but did not automatically apply; the sentence remained bespoke.
5. Application. Pregnancy was not automatically an exceptional circumstance. Following the approach in R v Charlton [2021] EWCA Crim 2006, [2022] 2 Cr App R (S) 18, its significance had to be assessed with the other mitigation. Here, the appellant’s heightened pregnancy risks, vulnerability, good character, early plea, cooperation, youth, low risk of reoffending and strong prospects of rehabilitation collectively made five years’ imprisonment unjust. The court also considered the guidance discussed in R v Stubbs [2022] EWCA Crim 1907 concerning reduction and suspension for pregnant offenders.
6. Disposition. The five-year sentence was quashed and replaced by two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years, with a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 20 days. The concurrent four-month sentence for ammunition was quashed and replaced by four months suspended for two years. The statutory surcharge remained applicable.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, admitted fresh evidence, allowed the appeal and substituted suspended sentences: [2024] EWCA Crim 20.
2. Crown Court at Woolwich: On 15 June 2023, imposed five years’ imprisonment for possession of a prohibited firearm and a concurrent four-month sentence for possession of ammunition.