R v Alex Fenton

In a reference against an allegedly unduly lenient sentence, the court must apply the guideline for the offence actually committed and ensure that the total sentence reflects the offender’s overall criminality. A Class A drug offence cannot be sentenced by reference to the Class B guideline. Continuing street dealing, wholesale purchases and wide advertising may require a significant rather than lesser role. Totality may justify concurrent sentences for related counts within one indictment, but separate indictments for distinct offending should run consecutively where concurrency would remove punishment for one offence. Mitigation and delay must not be counted twice. If the aggregate custodial term exceeds the statutory maximum for suspension, suspension is unavailable.

After guilty pleas in the Crown Court at Cambridge, Alex Fenton received 16 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years for inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, with concurrent suspended terms for Class A cocaine supply and Class B cannabis supply. No separate penalty was imposed for simple possession of cannabis. The alcohol abstinence requirement was later reduced under section 385 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that the drugs offences had been sentenced under the wrong guideline and wrongly made concurrent with the violence offence. The central issues were the proper guideline categories, totality, concurrency and undue leniency.

The reference was allowed. The sentences imposed below were quashed and substituted with a total custodial sentence of 45 months.

1. Section 20 offence. The court had reservations about placing the victim’s significant traumatic brain injury in harm category 2, but accepted that the sentencing judge was entitled to do so in the absence of more detailed evidence and bearing in mind the benefit of the doubt. The injury was nevertheless towards the upper end of that category. The offender was an adult aged 23, and the reduction for youth was generous. However, accepting the Solicitor General’s concession, the court held that the 16-month sentence was not unduly lenient. It retained that sentence only on the basis that substantial allowance had already been made for delay and personal mitigation.
2. Class A drugs. The sentencing judge appeared to have applied the Class B guideline. The offender’s lesser role classification for the Class A offence was accepted, but the applicable Class A category 3 starting point was three years’ imprisonment. The dealing continued over time and was not confined to a single transaction. After allowing 20 per cent credit for the guilty plea, the least proper sentence was 29 months.
3. Class B drugs. The evidence of wholesale purchases of substantial quantities of cannabis and advertising to a wide market established a significant role, not a lesser role. This was a category 3 offence with a 12-month starting point. The previous conviction for possession with intent to supply cannabis was highly relevant. An appropriate concurrent sentence after credit was 12 months.
4. Totality and concurrency. The totality principle required the drugs offending to be considered overall, with the count 2 sentence concurrent with count 1. The two indictments represented entirely separate offending. Making them concurrent without increasing the section 20 sentence meant that the offender escaped punishment for the drugs offending. The only proper course was therefore to make the drugs sentence consecutive. Mitigation and delay could not be counted again, and no further totality reduction was available.

The aggregate term exceeded the maximum capable of suspension, so suspension did not arise. The offender was ordered to surrender to custody. The victim surcharge was adjusted, while the forfeiture and destruction orders remained in force.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court quashed the sentences and substituted a total custodial term of 45 months. [2026] EWCA Crim 1075 .
2. Crown Court at Cambridge: On 23 January 2026, His Honour Judge Hurst imposed 16 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years, with concurrent suspended terms for the drugs offences and associated requirements. On 4 March 2026, the alcohol abstinence requirement was reduced from 180 to 120 days under section 385 of the Sentencing Act 2020; the remainder of the sentence was unchanged.