R v TIR

On an appeal against sentence, the absence of an error in the original sentencing exercise does not prevent intervention where materially fuller mitigation evidence is available on appeal and shows that the sentence is manifestly excessive in the circumstances established. Caring responsibilities may affect both sentence length and whether custody should be suspended, particularly where imprisonment would cause severe harm to dependent children. The court must balance the seriousness of the offence and the need for punishment against rehabilitation prospects, reoffending risk, protective measures, the impact on innocent children and time already served. A suspended sentence remains punishment and may be accompanied by rehabilitative requirements.

The applicant pleaded guilty to one offence of blackmail after lengthy proceedings and was sentenced by the Crown Court at Basildon to 37 months' immediate imprisonment. The sentencing judge treated the offence as one of medium culpability causing category 1 harm and considered the applicant's health, character and caring responsibilities. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the full court.

On appeal, updated evidence described unstable care arrangements for the applicant's two teenage sons, a risk of foster placement and possible loss of the family home. The central issue was whether that fuller mitigation made the sentence manifestly excessive and, if so, whether a reduced term should be suspended.

The court granted leave and allowed the appeal. It quashed the 37-month immediate custodial sentence and substituted three years' imprisonment, suspended for three years from 19 May 2026, with a 40-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement.

1. The original sentencing exercise disclosed no error. The offence had been correctly categorised, and 37 months was not manifestly excessive on the information available to the sentencing judge. The applicant's failure to provide fuller information about the children did not justify criticism of the judge.
2. The position was materially different on appeal. Updated evidence showed that the children's care was unstable, that Children's Services were considering foster placement, and that the applicant faced a real risk of losing her home. Caring responsibilities were a potentially mitigating factor under the sentencing guideline and could be relevant both to the length of sentence and to suspension. The sentencing judge had not had the full picture, and the sentence was therefore manifestly excessive in the circumstances established on appeal.
3. Allowing for the fuller mitigation, the appropriate sentence before credit for the guilty plea was 40 months. The 10 per cent reduction produced a term of 36 months, which was capable of suspension because the conviction occurred after 22 March 2026.
4. In deciding whether to suspend the term, the court considered compliance with court orders, the medium risk of reoffending, the restraining order, prospects of rehabilitation, the seriousness of the offence, the effect of custody on the children and the time already served. The court remained concerned about the applicant's continuing uncorroborated allegations and apparent manipulation of support services, but received reassurance from probation about rehabilitative work. Although the offence would ordinarily warrant immediate custody, the particularly severe impact on the innocent children, together with the two and a half months already served, justified suspension. A suspended sentence remained punishment. The court imposed no accredited programme or unpaid work requirement, but required 40 days of rehabilitation activity.

The sentence was suspended for three years, commencing on 19 May 2026. The court warned that breach or further offending could result in the sentence being brought into operation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): leave granted and appeal allowed. The 37-month immediate custodial sentence was quashed and replaced by three years' imprisonment suspended for three years, with a 40-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, in [2026] EWCA Crim 1106 .
• Crown Court at Basildon: following the applicant's guilty plea to blackmail, Her Honour Judge Cohen imposed 37 months' immediate imprisonment on 19 May 2026.