R v David Ian Jode

Before deciding whether to suspend a custodial sentence, a court must obtain and consider a pre-sentence report unless it considers one unnecessary. Where the report or assessments needed to evaluate community requirements cannot be provided on the sentencing day, the hearing should be adjourned. The court must assess the requirements a suspended sentence would impose and whether the offender has a realistic prospect of complying with them. The seriousness of the offence does not itself make suspension inappropriate unless immediate custody is required to achieve proper punishment. Missed probation appointments may support an inference of future non-compliance, particularly where repeated and unexplained, but must be evaluated in context. Applying the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Sentencing Council guideline, the appeal was allowed and a suspended sentence imposed.

On 12 September 2025 the Crown Court at Truro sentenced the appellant to 18 months’ imprisonment for possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and eight months concurrently for assault occasioning actual bodily harm; no separate penalty was imposed for damaging property. The judge had ordered a pre-sentence report, but proceeded without it after the appellant missed probation appointments, concluding that immediate custody was required because rehabilitation prospects were gloomy. The appeal concerned whether the judge could properly decide suspension without the report and recommended mental-health and alcohol assessments, and whether the missed appointments justified the conclusion on compliance. The Court of Appeal obtained the reports and assessments for the appeal.

The appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal suspended the concurrent custodial sentences for 18 months and imposed mental-health, alcohol-treatment and rehabilitation requirements.

1. Statutory and guideline framework. Under section 230 of the Sentencing Act 2020, custody may be imposed only where the offence or offences are so serious that only custody can be justified. Section 30 requires the court to obtain and consider a pre-sentence report unless it considers one unnecessary. Section 277 permits imprisonment of between 14 days and two years to be suspended. Section 59 requires relevant sentencing guidelines to be followed unless that would be contrary to the interests of justice.
2. The Sentencing Council guideline required the court to consider whether custody was unavoidable, the shortest commensurate term, and whether the sentence could be suspended. Relevant factors included realistic rehabilitation prospects, risk of re-offending, personal mitigation, harmful effects of immediate custody, risk to others, the seriousness of the offence, past compliance and likely future compliance.
3. The sentencing judge could not properly conclude that rehabilitation prospects were negligible without information about the requirements that would be needed and the appellant’s ability to comply with them. The probation officer had recommended an adjournment for mental-health and alcohol assessments. The judge should therefore have adjourned to obtain the necessary report and assessments. The offence’s seriousness was not determinative of suspension.
4. Multiple failures to attend probation appointments without good cause may support an inference of likely future non-compliance. The failures must, however, be assessed in context. Here, one failure resulted from illness, the other failures to comply with court orders were nearly ten years old, and the available reports showed low risks of re-offending and a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.
5. The sentences were suspended for 18 months. The order included up to 12 mental-health treatment sessions, six months of alcohol treatment and up to 10 days of rehabilitation activity.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2025] EWCA Crim 1617. Allowed the appeal against sentence and imposed a suspended sentence order.
• Crown Court at Truro — On 12 September 2025 imposed 18 months’ imprisonment for possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and eight months concurrently for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.