R v Seong Telk Lau

A sentencing judge does not impose an unlawful exceptional circumstances threshold merely by observing that commercial drug importation for financial gain will ordinarily require immediate custody. The question remains whether the applicable sentencing guideline permits suspension. Immediate custody is expressly available where it is the only means of achieving appropriate punishment.

Where the judge has applied that guideline and explained why the seriousness of the offence requires immediate custody, the sentencing discretion has not been fettered. The nature of the offending and the value of the drugs may independently justify refusing suspension.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to being concerned in the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importing class B cannabis, contrary to section 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

At the Crown Court at Isleworth, he received 12 months’ imprisonment after importing just under 17 kilograms of cannabis, with a stated street value of £510,000. The judge reduced the sentence for mitigation and the early guilty plea, but declined to suspend it.

The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal. He contended that the judge had wrongly treated suspension as available only in exceptional circumstances, rather than applying the sentencing guideline.

1. The court declined the extension of time and refused leave to appeal against sentence. The proposed ground was not reasonably arguable, so there was no value in extending time.
2. The sentencing judge had not created or applied an additional requirement that suspension could occur only in exceptional circumstances. He had referred to the guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences and treated the decisive question as whether appropriate punishment could be achieved only by immediate custody.
3. That is a recognised basis under the guideline for imposing an immediate custodial sentence. The judge’s observation that commercial drug importers acting for financial gain should ordinarily expect immediate imprisonment explained his application of the guideline to serious offending. It did not fetter his discretion.
4. In any event, the nature of the offending and the value of the drugs entitled the judge to regard the offence as too serious for suspension. The applicant’s age, good character, health difficulties, limited English, and early guilty plea had already been reflected in the reduction from the adjusted starting point of 22 months to a sentence of 12 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 111.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: on 11 October 2024, imposed 12 months’ imprisonment following the applicant’s committal for sentence from Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court.
• Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court: on 3 September 2024, after a guilty plea, committed the applicant for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.