R v Lilea Sallis

In sentencing a conspiracy to convey an illicit drug into a prison, substantial weight must be given to deterrence. An analogous drug-supply guideline may require a substantial upward adjustment from its starting point, even where no drug enters the prison. Short duration, withdrawal and absence of practical steps may carry limited weight where the offender’s intended role was crucial and withdrawal reflected self-interest. Personal mitigation must be assessed, but may have strictly limited weight against the gravity of prison-related drug offending. Immediate custody may remain appropriate even if a lower sentence would permit consideration of suspension.

Following her conviction by a jury at the Crown Court at Southwark on 20 January 2026, the appellant was sentenced by HHJ Hehir to 30 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to convey a List A article into prison, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. With leave, she appealed on the grounds that her brief involvement, withdrawal and the fact that no drugs entered the prison made the sentence manifestly excessive, and that significant personal mitigation justified a suspended sentence. The central issues were the proper weight of those matters and whether immediate custody was justified.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
2. Offences involving the taking of drugs into prison require deterrent sentences and immediate custodial terms. The sentencing judge correctly used the analogous definitive guideline for the supply of Class B drugs, placing the offending in significant-role culpability and category 3 harm, with a 12-month starting point and a six-month to three-year range.
3. For a conspiracy of this type, a substantial upward adjustment from the guideline starting point was necessary to reflect deterrence. The appellant’s involvement was brief and she took no active steps before withdrawing, but those matters were countered by the reasons for withdrawal and by the crucial nature of her intended role in the plan. The absence of any actual conveyance did not make the sentence excessive.
4. The court gave particular consideration to personal mitigation and comparative sentences imposed on the co-accused. The appellant’s mitigation had strictly limited weight in the context of the offence, and there was no unfair disparity with the other sentences. The trial judge was best placed to make the overall assessment.
5. The court added that, even if the sentence had been reduced to a term permitting consideration of suspension, the gravity of the offence would have required immediate custody.

• Crown Court at Southwark: Following jury conviction, HHJ Hehir imposed 30 months’ imprisonment on 20 January 2026.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal was granted by a single judge. The appeal was dismissed: [2026] EWCA Crim 600.