R v David Ubido

A sentencing court should obtain and consider a pre-sentence report where the proposed custodial term is capable of suspension and the offender raises credible mental-health concerns, unless a report is unnecessary. A psychiatric or other report is not required merely because mental-health difficulties are asserted. The court must have sufficient information to assess whether a disorder is connected with the offending, including whether it reduced culpability or affects the suitability of immediate custody. A disorder reduces culpability only where there is a sufficient connection with the offending behaviour. A sentence may properly remain immediate custody where the seriousness of the offence means that punishment cannot otherwise be achieved, despite a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the magistrates’ court to importing 31.66 kilograms of herbal cannabis, contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. The Crown Court imposed 18 months’ imprisonment without obtaining a pre-sentence report, despite submissions concerning mental-health difficulties and possible suspension.

On appeal, the court obtained a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric report. The issues were whether the failure to obtain reports undermined the sentence, whether the appellant’s mental disorders reduced culpability or justified a shorter term, and whether the sentence should have been suspended.

Appeal dismissed. The court considered the sentence afresh because it had the benefit of a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric report.

1. Reports. The offence warranted custody, but the sentencing court should have requested and considered a pre-sentence report. Section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020 required this unless the court considered it unnecessary. The proposed sentence was capable of suspension, and the appellant had raised mental-health concerns with some basis in his engagement with prison services. Reports are not invariably required whenever an offender asserts mental-health conditions. In an appropriate case, the court may obtain assistance from the Liaison and Diversion Team in deciding whether a psychiatric report is needed.
2. Mental disorder and culpability. The applicable guideline required an initial assessment under the offence-specific guideline, followed by consideration of whether the disorder reduced culpability. Reduction required a sufficient connection between the disorder and the offending. The evidence showed that the appellant had understood the illegality and consequences of his conduct, had thought through his options, and had made a rational, though poor, choice for financial gain. His disorders did not impair his judgment, rational decision-making, or understanding. They therefore did not reduce culpability or justify a lower sentence.
3. Sentence and suspension. Acting as a courier involved a lesser role, but the expected significant financial advantage supported an aspect of significant role. The quantity of cannabis justified a notional sentence after trial of two and a half years, reduced by three months for mitigation and by one-third for the guilty plea, producing 18 months. The reports showed a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and a low risk of reoffending or harm, but the seriousness of importing cannabis worth nearly £1 million meant that immediate custody was necessary to achieve appropriate punishment. The sentence was just and proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: The Recorder sentenced the appellant to 18 months’ imprisonment after his guilty plea.
• Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court: The appellant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.