R v Danielle Hubbard

Whether a custodial sentence should be suspended is a matter of evaluative judgment, not an arithmetical exercise. The sentencing guideline identifies relevant factors, but the court must weigh them in context. Factors favouring suspension, such as rehabilitation prospects, remorse and positive character evidence, may be outweighed by the seriousness of the offending. An appellate court will interfere only where the decision is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. A guideline that was not in force when sentence was imposed should not be applied retrospectively.

The appellant pleaded guilty to being concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition of a Class B drug. She was sentenced in the Crown Court at Isleworth to 16 months’ imprisonment for importing 37.52 kilograms of cannabis. The sentence was imposed after full credit for the guilty plea and was ordered to be served immediately.

She appealed against sentence, arguing that the judge had failed to apply the Imposition Guideline when deciding whether the custodial term should be suspended. The issues were whether the judge had erred in principle and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The categorisation of the sentence and the total term imposed were not challenged. The issue was confined to whether immediate custody should have been replaced by a suspended sentence order, or whether the decision was otherwise wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
2. The court applied the approach stated in R v Price (Creddick) [2023] EWCA Crim 1060 at [12]. The decision whether to suspend a custodial sentence is often difficult. The factors identified by the guideline are relevant, but they are competing and incommensurable. Weighing them is a matter of judgment, not arithmetic, and an appellate court should not lightly interfere.
3. The sentencing judge was entitled to weigh the appellant’s reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, remorse, positive character references and poor mental health against the very serious offending. The offence involved the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition concerning a large quantity of cannabis, with a street value of about £1.2 million, for financial gain.
4. The court declined to take account of the new Sentencing Guideline for the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Definitive Guidelines, including its guidance concerning female offenders, because it was not in force when the appellant was sentenced. The decision not to suspend the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. Immediate custody was therefore an available and lawful conclusion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed on 10 April 2025. The court held that the decision not to suspend the sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: On 14 March 2025, HHJ Balogun sentenced the appellant to 16 months’ immediate imprisonment.