R v Alastair Allen

A suspended sentence must be activated unless activation would be unjust in all the circumstances. The principal considerations are the offender’s level of compliance and the facts of the new offence. Compliance is incomplete where material requirements are breached, including an abstinence condition, rehabilitation activity requirements or attendance at court. Mitigation already taken into account when imposing the suspended sentence cannot be repeated to avoid activation. A sentence may be harsh without being manifestly excessive. The court also confirmed the applicable driving-disqualification calculation by applying R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 445.

This was an application for leave to appeal against sentence, referred to the full court by the Registrar. Leave was granted. The applicant had previously received an eight-month suspended sentence with alcohol treatment, curfew and rehabilitation requirements.

After committing a further drink-driving offence during the operational period, and failing to attend his first court appearance, he was sentenced at Preston Crown Court to four weeks’ imprisonment for driving with excess alcohol, one week concurrently for failing to surrender to custody, and 24 weeks’ imprisonment following activation of the suspended sentence. The central issues were whether activation was unjust in the circumstances and whether the custodial sentence for the new offending was manifestly excessive.

Appeal dismissed. The full court granted leave to appeal but upheld the sentence.

1. Activation of the suspended sentence. The Sentencing Council guideline required activation unless it would be unjust in all the circumstances. The predominant considerations were the level of compliance with the order and the facts of the new offence. Previous mitigation for the offence for which the suspended sentence had been imposed could not be repeated.
2. The applicant’s compliance was not complete. He had attended 23 of 26 rehabilitation activity requirement days, but one absence had no good reason. More significantly, he had resumed drinking despite the requirement to stop, committed the new drink-driving offence during the operational period, and failed to attend court. The sentencing judge was therefore right to activate the sentence.
3. The reduction of the original 34-week sentence to 24 weeks properly reflected partial compliance and some discharge of the order’s conditions. The reduction did not make the sentence manifestly excessive.
4. Once the suspended sentence was activated, a custodial sentence was required in the circumstances. The six-week sentence before credit for the guilty plea, reduced to four weeks, also reflected the failure to surrender and the applicant’s record. Although harsh, it was not manifestly excessive.
5. The court confirmed that the total driving disqualification should be 182 weeks. Applying R v Needham [2016] EWCA Crim 445; [2016] 1 WLR 4449, the calculation took account of one-half of the sentence for driving with excess alcohol, one-half of the activated suspended sentence and a three-and-a-half-year disqualification period. The second drink-driving offence also attracted a mandatory minimum disqualification of three years.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 20 June 2025, leave to appeal against sentence was granted and the appeal was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 913.
2. Crown Court at Preston: On 13 May 2025, the applicant was sentenced to four weeks’ imprisonment for driving with excess alcohol, one week concurrently for failing to surrender, and 24 weeks following activation of the suspended sentence.