R v Ian James Fairfield

When deciding whether a custodial sentence should be suspended, the sentencing court must weigh the relevant factors for and against suspension, giving each its proper weight. The exercise is not a numerical count: one factor against suspension may outweigh several factors in favour. In an offence committed amid serious public disorder, the full context may make immediate custody necessary for punishment, even where the offender has strong personal mitigation, including mental-health problems. An appellate court must not substitute its own view of the balance. It may interfere only if the decision is plainly wrong in principle or produces a manifestly excessive sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to non-domestic burglary, possession of cannabis and cultivation of cannabis. The burglary was committed during large-scale disorder in Southport. The Crown Court at Liverpool imposed 16 months’ immediate imprisonment for the burglary, with concurrent one-month sentences for the cannabis offences.

The appellant appealed against sentence with permission, arguing that the burglary sentence should have been suspended. He relied on his mental-health history, psychiatric evidence and pre-sentence reports recommending a community order. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had been entitled to conclude that immediate custody was necessary despite the appellant’s personal mitigation.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. Suspension of custody. The Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences guideline required the sentencing judge to weigh the relevant factors for and against suspension. The exercise was evaluative, not mathematical. The number of factors on each side was not decisive because different factors could carry different weight. A single factor against suspension could outweigh all factors in favour.
2. Assessment of seriousness and mitigation. The burglary had to be assessed in its full context. Although the appellant had not participated in the wider violent disorder, he had willingly joined the looting of a shop during an appalling episode of public disorder. That context was capable of making immediate custody the only sentence sufficient for appropriate punishment. The appellant’s mental-health problems did not reduce his culpability on the facts, although they amounted to general and strong personal mitigation.
3. Appellate restraint. The Court of Appeal was not entitled to substitute its own assessment of the guideline factors. It could interfere only where the sentencing decision was plainly wrong in principle or resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence, applying the approach in R v Tharmaratnam [2017] EWCA Crim 887; R v Hussain [2019] EWCA Crim 1542. The judge had considered the relevant guidelines and was entitled to give decisive weight to the seriousness of the offence in its context. The sentence was neither plainly wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the sentence.
2. Crown Court at Liverpool: imposed 16 months’ immediate imprisonment for non-domestic burglary, with concurrent one-month sentences for possession and cultivation of cannabis.