R v Rachel Lucy Beresford

Whether a custodial sentence should be suspended is a case-specific balancing exercise. The guideline factors are not counted arithmetically, and there is no presumption in favour of immediate imprisonment. Current evidence of rehabilitation, personal mitigation, risk, compliance history and the impact of custody must be considered. Gender-specific matters may be relevant when sentencing vulnerable female offenders, even before specific guidance takes effect. Historic non-compliance must be assessed against up-to-date reports. Class A drug supply, including repetition while under investigation, does not automatically require immediate custody. An appellate court may intervene where refusal to suspend is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Derby Crown Court to four Class A drug offences arising from two investigations. On 15 August 2025 she received concurrent sentences totalling 22 months’ imprisonment.

She appealed on the ground that immediate custody was manifestly excessive. The length of the sentence was not challenged. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had properly assessed suspension, rehabilitation prospects, personal mitigation and the circumstances of a vulnerable female offender.

The appeal was allowed. The 22-month sentence and the other concurrent sentences were suspended for 24 months, with rehabilitation activity, drug rehabilitation and electronically monitored trail-monitoring requirements.

1. The decision whether custody should be immediate is a case-specific balancing exercise. The factors in the Overarching Guideline are not to be counted arithmetically. There is no presumption in favour of immediate imprisonment. The court must also have regard to the high prison population, as recognised in R v Ali [2023] 2 Cr App R (S).
2. The appellate court will generally be slow to interfere with the sentencing judge’s evaluative judgment. The approach, summarised in R v Bond [2024] EWCA Crim 406 and explained through R v Price [2023] EWCA Crim 1060, permits intervention where the decision is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
3. The sentencing judge’s reference to factors required to persuade the court to suspend suggested an incorrect presumption in favour of immediate custody. The judge also appeared to treat Class A drug supply repeated while under investigation as requiring immediate imprisonment. That approach was wrong; the issue always requires a case-specific balancing exercise.
4. Even before the specific female-offender guidance took effect, gender-specific matters were relevant. They included the appellant’s trauma, substance misuse, history of domestic abuse, vulnerability, continuity of community support, loss of her child, lack of a support network on release and the increased impact of imprisonment on female offenders.
5. Both reports identified a realistic prospect of rehabilitation. The judge relied too heavily on historic non-compliance and insufficiently considered current evidence of motivation, drug-treatment engagement and progress. At sentence the appellant had not offended for 22 months, was engaging with support and did not present a high current risk of offending or harm.
6. In those circumstances, and given the strong personal mitigation, appropriate punishment could be achieved without immediate custody. Immediate imprisonment was therefore manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2025] EWCA Crim 1812 allowed the appeal and suspended the custodial sentences for 24 months with specified requirements.
• Crown Court at Derby: sentenced the appellant on 15 August 2025 to concurrent terms totalling 22 months’ immediate imprisonment.