R v Oliver Davis & Anor

A decision whether to suspend a custodial sentence is an evaluative judgment, not an arithmetical exercise. Guideline factors must be weighed together, and a sentencing judge may give overriding weight to the seriousness of the offending and the need for immediate custody, even where factors strongly favour suspension. The appellate court interferes only where the decision is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The extension of the power to suspend under Sentencing Act 2026 does not alter that approach.

Oliver Davis and Cory Heath pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Guildford to affray and unlawful wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Each was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment, with the terms for the two offences concurrent. The applicants renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the Single Judge.

The offence categorisation and length of sentence were not challenged. The applicants relied on rehabilitation prospects, low risks of reoffending, personal mitigation, delay and the harmful effects of immediate custody. The central issue was whether the refusal to suspend the sentences was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The applications for leave to appeal against sentence were dismissed.

1. Appellate approach. The court applied the approach stated in R v Price [2023] EWCA Crim 1060. The decision whether to suspend a custodial sentence is an evaluative judgment. Guideline factors are not to be counted mechanically because competing considerations are incommensurable. The Court of Appeal should interfere only where the decision is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
2. Effect of the statutory extension. The increase in the power to impose a suspended sentence order under section 2 of the Sentencing Act 2026 did not alter that appellate approach. The court referred to R v Aliaj [2026] EWCA Crim 1141 as supporting the same conclusion.
3. Balancing the factors. The fact that an offender satisfies all, or strongly satisfies, the guideline factors favouring suspension does not establish an error of principle. A sentencing judge may give overriding weight to the seriousness of the offending and the need for immediate custody. The relevant question is whether the conclusion was reasonably open to the judge.
4. Application. The sentencing judge had considered the applicants’ mitigation, rehabilitation prospects, low risks of reoffending, delay and personal circumstances. The prolonged joint attack and grave injury made immediate custody reasonably open to her. Her refusal to suspend the sentences involved no error of principle and was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2026] EWCA Crim 1198 , the renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence were dismissed.
• Crown Court at Guildford — On 19 June 2026, Her Honour Judge Charles sentenced each applicant to 27 months’ imprisonment for affray and section 20 unlawful wounding, with concurrent terms, and declined to suspend the custodial sentence.