R v Amie Moss

For sentencing purposes, quantities from multiple drug parcels forming part of one course of offending may be aggregated. Where the total is materially below the indicative amount for the selected guideline category, the sentence should be appreciably reduced before mitigation and plea credit are applied, absent aggravating factors supporting a higher sentence. A sentencing judge must explain how the guideline factors have affected the sentence. If the resulting term permits suspension, the court must balance the factors favouring suspension against whether the offending is so serious that only custody is justified. Youth, immaturity, strong mitigation, rehabilitation and positive employment prospects may justify suspension even in serious offending.

This was an appeal against sentence brought with leave of the single judge. After pleading guilty before the magistrates, the appellant was committed for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for importing cannabis and possessing cannabis. The Crown Court at St Albans sentenced her to 27 months’ imprisonment for the importation offence.

The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had failed properly to account for the quantity below the guideline’s indicative amount, her role, her mitigation and the prospects of suspension. The central issues were whether the guideline had been applied correctly and whether the sentence should be suspended.

The appeal was allowed. The sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with a suspended sentence of 22 months for two years, with a 30-day rehabilitation activity requirement.

1. The judge was entitled to reject the submission that the appellant played a lesser role. He was also right to aggregate the quantities in the individual parcels, producing a total of 26 kilograms for sentencing purposes.
2. However, the sentencing remarks did not make clear how the guideline had been applied. A sentencing judge should fully address the matters affecting sentence so that the public and the court can understand the route to the result.
3. The Category 2 significant-role starting point was 48 months, based on an indicative quantity of 40 kilograms. The appellant’s quantity was materially lower. An appreciable reduction was therefore required before mitigation was considered. No aggravating factors had been identified to justify moving up the range. The quantity and mitigation warranted a reduction considerably greater than seven months, producing an appropriate sentence after trial of no more than 33 months and, after plea credit, 22 months.
4. Because 22 months permitted suspension, the court considered that discretion. It accepted that the guideline factors favouring suspension applied, but balanced them against whether the offending was so serious that only custody was justified.
5. The offending involved numerous parcels over a period of time. Nevertheless, the appellant was young when she agreed to the use of her home address, had shown sustained determination to reform, had worked in the NHS with prospects of advancement, and had already spent two and a half months in custody. In those circumstances suspension was appropriate.

The Crown Court record was also ordered to be amended to show that the appellant had been sent for sentence following guilty pleas, rather than proceeded against on an indictment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 11 September 2025, the appeal against sentence was allowed. The 27-month sentence was quashed and replaced with a 22-month sentence suspended for two years, with a rehabilitation activity requirement. The decision is reported at [2025] EWCA Crim 1252.
• Crown Court at St Albans: On 4 July 2025, the appellant was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment for fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importing cannabis, with no separate penalty for possession.
• Stevenage Magistrates’ Court: On 16 October 2024, the appellant pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.