R v Rajak Miah

Crossing the custody threshold does not determine whether a custodial sentence should be suspended. The sentencing judge must consider all the circumstances and the relevant factors in the Imposition Guideline, balancing them in the exercise of judgment.

The prospect of rehabilitation is only one consideration. Offending while subject to a community order, followed by further offending after release under investigation, may make the offences more serious and justify immediate custody despite personal mitigation, family impact and positive rehabilitative indicators.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Leeds to possession of MDMA and several offences involving the supply of cannabis and ketamine. On 21 December 2023, the judge imposed concurrent terms of 18 months’ imprisonment. The custody threshold and sentence length were not challenged on appeal.

The appeal concerned the judge’s refusal to suspend the sentences. The appellant relied on personal mitigation, his developing family and business responsibilities, the absence of a rehabilitation activity requirement in the pre-sentence report, the prison population and a positive prison report. The central issue was whether immediate custody was justified after balancing the relevant sentencing factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence.

1. Custody threshold and sentence length. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the case crossed the custody threshold. The length of the sentence was not challenged, and the judge had correctly referred to the applicable sentencing guidelines.
2. Suspension and the Imposition Guideline. The judge was required to consider whether the sentences could be suspended after taking account of all the circumstances and all relevant factors in the Imposition Guideline. The prospect of rehabilitation was only one matter in that assessment. Personal mitigation, the impact of custody on the appellant’s wife and the positive features identified in the case were relevant, but had to be balanced against the seriousness of the offending.
3. Offending under constraints. The appellant had offended while subject to a community order and had continued offending after being released under investigation. Those circumstances showed a failure to have regard to constraints under which he was, or should have been, operating, and made the offences more serious. It was reasonably open to the judge to conclude that, after balancing the relevant factors, only immediate custody provided appropriate punishment.
4. Disposition. The mitigating circumstances and the submissions concerning rehabilitation did not make the refusal to suspend the sentences wrong in principle or outside the range of reasonable sentencing decisions. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 24 April 2024, the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 474.
2. Crown Court at Leeds — On 21 December 2023, concurrent terms of 18 months’ imprisonment were imposed following guilty pleas.