R v Ryan Haslam

For the statutory minimum term under section 313 of the Sentencing Act 2020, exceptional circumstances may arise where an offender is chronologically an adult but, on reliable findings of fact, was developmentally operating as a child when committing the triggering offence. The inquiry is whether imposing the mandatory term would be arbitrary or disproportionate in all the circumstances. Such cases will be very rare.

The Court of Appeal will not interfere with a sentencing judge’s factual finding unless it is internally inconsistent, inconsistent with an uncontroverted fact, or irrational. Where exceptional circumstances justify departure from the minimum term and sentence has been deferred, the sentencing judge should decide in the first instance whether immediate custody is ultimately required.

The Solicitor General obtained leave to refer as unduly lenient a deferred sentence imposed on Ryan Haslam in the Crown Court on 22 November 2023. He had pleaded guilty to three offences of possessing class A drugs with intent to supply and one offence of possessing criminal property.

Absent exceptional circumstances, his prior qualifying convictions engaged the seven-year minimum custodial term in section 313 of the Sentencing Act 2020, subject to credit for his guilty plea. The sentencing judge found that, although aged 18 years and 9 months at the time of the triggering offences, he was developmentally operating as a child and had been groomed for exploitation. The central issue was whether those findings could amount to exceptional circumstances and justify deferring sentence.

1. The Reference was dismissed. Although leave to refer was granted, the sentencing judge had been entitled to find exceptional circumstances and to defer sentence.

2. Section 313 of the Sentencing Act 2020 imposed a seven-year minimum custodial term, subject to guilty-plea credit, unless exceptional circumstances relating to the offences or offender justified a different course. The statutory scheme requires the triggering offence to be committed when the offender is aged 18 or over. It does not require the two earlier qualifying offences to have been committed after that age.

3. The Court applied the guidance in R v Nancarrow [2019] EWCA Crim 470. Exceptional circumstances require a holistic assessment and should not be found too readily. They may exist where the mandatory term would be arbitrary or disproportionate.

   Here, the judge had made a factual finding, on evidence, that Haslam was operating as a juvenile and was developmentally a child despite his chronological age. That finding was neither internally inconsistent, contradicted by an uncontroverted fact, nor irrational. The statutory regime was directed at adults. In the exceptionally rare circumstances of this offender’s developmental difficulties, childhood trauma, grooming and very young age as a third qualifying offender, a seven-year term less credit would have been disproportionate.

4. The Solicitor General’s alternative submission, that immediate imprisonment should nevertheless be imposed, was for the sentencing judge when considering the deferred sentence. The Court noted that Haslam had not complied fully with probation requirements. That was relevant to the deferred-sentence hearing, but did not make the original decision to defer sentence unduly lenient.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 404.
• Crown Court: On 22 November 2023, sentence for the drug-trafficking and criminal-property offences was deferred after the judge found exceptional circumstances.