R v Jason Howells

On an Attorney General’s Reference, the Court of Appeal may review a sentencing indication and a sentence that is unduly lenient, but its jurisdiction is limited. A statutory minimum sentence for a third drug-trafficking offence may be avoided where imposing it would be unjust in the particular circumstances. That exception does not remove the need to apply the ordinary sentencing guideline or to impose custody where the offending requires it. Serious later injury may provide substantial mitigation and support the statutory exception, but it does not reduce culpability at the time of the offence. The total sentence must reflect the offender’s whole criminality while respecting totality. A suspended sentence may be activated and made concurrent where that produces a just overall sentence.

The Solicitor General referred sentences imposed by the Crown Court at Ipswich after the offender pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including a third drug-trafficking offence, driving and public-order offences, theft, and breach of a restraining order. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent community orders, declined to apply the statutory minimum for the drug offence, and did not activate a 15-month suspended sentence.

The offender had later suffered a serious stabbing which caused significant physical and neurological impairment and was due to give evidence at an attempted-murder trial. The central issues were whether the statutory minimum and suspended sentence could properly be avoided, whether a community order was sufficient, and whether the associated committals to the Crown Court were lawful.

Application granted. The sentences were unduly lenient. They were quashed to the extent identified and substituted with custodial sentences producing a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

1. The court’s jurisdiction under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is important but limited. The first-instance judge is well placed to assess competing sentencing factors. Leave should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, and the jurisdiction addresses sentences outside the reasonable range and gross error. A sentencing indication does not bind this court, including after the procedure endorsed in R v Goodyear [2005] 2 Cr App R 20.
2. The third drug-trafficking offence triggered the statutory minimum under section 313 of the Sentencing Code. The guideline’s stepped approach had to be followed. At step 3, the court had to decide whether imposing the seven-year minimum would be unjust in the particular circumstances. The sentencing judge was entitled to reach that conclusion on the facts of this case.
3. That conclusion did not justify a community order. The ordinary guideline still had to be applied, even if the statutory minimum was displaced. The later stabbing and resulting disabilities were important mitigation, but they could not affect culpability when the drug offending was committed. A category 3 offence, even on the lesser-role basis adopted by the judge, had a starting point of three years’ custody.
4. The total sentence had to reflect the seriousness of all the offending. Count 1 was properly treated as the lead offence, with the other sentences concurrent. The 15-month suspended sentence had to be activated, but concurrently because it had been taken into account in fixing the overall sentence.
5. The court substituted five years’ imprisonment for count 1 and varied the sentences on the remaining matters as set out in the judgment. It maintained the extended driving re-test, increased disqualification from three years to five years and six months, directed payment of the statutory surcharge, and ordered surrender to custody.
6. The committals for sentence were lawful. A committal is valid where a power to commit was available, even if the magistrates purported to use another unlawful power. An incorrect statutory power does not invalidate the resulting sentence.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — on 11 September 2025, granted the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, found the sentences unduly lenient, and substituted new sentences: [2025] EWCA Crim 1237.
2. Crown Court at Ipswich — on 20 June 2025, imposed concurrent three-year community orders, a nominal fine for breach of the suspended sentence order, and did not activate the suspended custodial term.