R v Sona Godlova

When deciding whether to suspend a custodial sentence, the court must assess the relevant guideline factors in the round. A realistic prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation favour suspension. The absence of an assessed risk to the public and any history of non-compliance with court orders weigh against immediate custody. Where mental-health conditions affected the offending, the sentencing court must consider whether culpability was reduced and reflect that reduction when deciding whether custody is the only appropriate punishment. Serious offending must be assessed in context. Youth, a limited record and impulsive conduct may support punishment in the community with structured intervention, even where the custody threshold has been crossed.

The appellant, aged 18 when she committed the relevant offences, pleaded guilty to two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm arising from incidents during police intervention at her mother’s home and at a police station. She also faced offences of assaulting emergency workers and earlier offences, for which no separate penalty was imposed.

On 18 July 2025, the Crown Court at Cambridge sentenced her to concurrent terms of 24 weeks’ detention in a young offender institution. The judge accepted that there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation but concluded that only immediate custody could provide appropriate punishment. With leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether the judge had properly assessed her youth, mental-health difficulties, reduced culpability and other personal mitigation when deciding whether to suspend the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent that the sentence was varied. The concurrent terms of 24 weeks’ detention were suspended for 24 months. No unpaid work requirement was imposed, because the appellant had already served three weeks in custody. A requirement to complete 40 days of rehabilitation activity was imposed.

1. The relevant sentencing guidelines identify factors against suspension, including the risk posed to the public, whether appropriate punishment can be achieved only in custody, and a history of poor compliance with court orders. Factors favouring suspension include a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation. No risk had been assessed in this case and there had been no failure to comply with court orders.
2. The guideline concerning offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments required culpability to be assessed and consideration to be given to whether the disorder reduced it. The judge accepted the prospect of rehabilitation but had not properly factored in the appellant’s strong personal mitigation. She was only 18 at the time of the offences, and her mental-health conditions had affected her actions and reduced her culpability.
3. The seriousness of the assaults had to be assessed in context. The appellant had only one previous conviction, committed at 17, which had not resulted in a penalty. Her conduct was impulsive and occurred while she resisted being removed from the house. Her youth, troubled background, reduced culpability and the realistic prospect of rehabilitation meant that immediate custody was not the only appropriate punishment. Punishment in the community, ideally with structured community-health intervention, was appropriate.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal to the extent stated and varied the sentence by suspending the concurrent 24-week terms for 24 months, omitting unpaid work and imposing 40 days of rehabilitation activity.
2. Crown Court at Cambridge: on 18 July 2025, imposed concurrent terms of 24 weeks’ detention in a young offender institution, with no separate penalty for the other offences.