R v Charlotte Byron

A sentencing judge must distinguish a guideline starting point from the notional sentence after trial and must assess mitigation separately. Pregnancy must be considered by reference to the risks to mother and baby in custody; whether it was planned is irrelevant. The welfare of dependent children and an unborn child is material.

Sentence must reflect an offender’s individual role and duration of involvement in a conspiracy. Where rehabilitation, strong personal mitigation and harmful effects of custody support suspension, and relevant public-risk and compliance concerns are absent, suspension must be considered afresh. Pregnancy risks may justify a merciful approach.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Woolwich to conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation arising from the deceptive sale of puppies. She received 27 months’ immediate imprisonment. Her involvement was shorter and less extensive than that of the principal conspirators, and she had a dependent teenage daughter, was pregnant and had no previous convictions.

She appealed on the grounds that the sentence and starting point were wrong in principle and excessive. She also renewed applications alleging unfairness and apparent bias arising from the sentencing judge’s remarks about her pregnancy. The central issues were the assessment of her individual culpability, the treatment of pregnancy and family circumstances as mitigation, and whether the substituted sentence should be suspended.

1. Bias and fairness. The sentencing judge’s remarks about why the appellant had become pregnant should not have been made. A sentencing judge must focus on the risks to mother and baby of pregnancy and birth in custody, not on whether the pregnancy was planned. However, the remarks were confined to a few lines in a lengthy hearing and did not arguably demonstrate bias or unfairness affecting the whole sentencing process. The renewed applications on those grounds were refused.
2. Terminology and sentencing assessment. The use of starting point should be reserved for the technical starting points in the relevant guideline tables. Terms such as the notional sentence after trial or the appropriate sentence before mitigation and plea reduction avoid confusion.
3. Individual culpability and mitigation. The judge was entitled to place the conspiracy as a whole in harm category 2 and to categorise the involvement of participants other than the organiser as culpability B. However, the appellant’s involvement lasted only from March to September 2021. No breeding dogs were kept at her address, no puppies were raised there, and no animal-cruelty offence was alleged against her. Her lesser role, shorter involvement, previous good character and family circumstances required a substantially greater reduction from the guideline starting point. The sentence of 27 months was manifestly excessive. The appropriate notional sentence after trial was 24 months, reduced by 10 per cent for the guilty plea to 21 months.
4. Suspension. The court reconsidered suspension afresh because the reduced sentence engaged that possibility. The guideline factors favouring suspension were all present: a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, strong personal mitigation and significant harmful impact on others from immediate custody. The factors concerning risk to the public and poor compliance with court orders were inapplicable. The court gave substantial weight to the appellant’s advanced and higher-risk pregnancy, gestational diabetes, the risks to the unborn baby, her dependent daughter and her low risk of reoffending. Those matters called overwhelmingly for a merciful approach.
5. Disposition. The appeal on the first and second grounds was allowed. The sentence of 27 months’ immediate custody was quashed and replaced by 21 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months, with no requirements. The appellant was entitled to immediate release.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal on sentence and substituted 21 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months. [2024] EWCA Crim 818
• Crown Court at Woolwich: Following a guilty plea, imposed 27 months’ immediate imprisonment on 27 January 2024.