R v Renatas Butavicius

Where a custodial term is capable of suspension, the sentencing court must consider whether it should be suspended and must demonstrate in its sentencing remarks that it has applied the Imposition Guideline. An elaborate analysis is unnecessary, but the relevant factors must be balanced. If the sentencing court fails to undertake that exercise, the appellate court may conduct it itself. Positive rehabilitation prospects and limited risk may nevertheless be outweighed where the seriousness of the offending means that appropriate punishment can be achieved only by immediate custody.

After pleading guilty at the Central Criminal Court to six offences arising from a drunken attack on members of the public, the applicant received concurrent sentences totalling two years' imprisonment and a four-year restraining order. The offences included three assaults occasioning actual bodily harm, two assaults by beating and affray. The Recorder treated the lead offence as falling within category A1 of the relevant sentencing guideline and imposed immediate custody.

The applicant did not challenge the custodial term or the categorisation of the offending. He appealed on the ground that the Recorder had failed to consider whether the term should be suspended and had not applied the Imposition Guideline.

Appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal was granted, but the sentence was upheld.

1. The Recorder had determined a custodial term of two years. That term was capable of suspension under the law applicable to the convictions. He nevertheless moved directly to immediate custody without addressing suspension or the factors in the Imposition Guideline. That was an error in principle.
2. Where suspension is legally available, sentencing judges and recorders must demonstrate in their sentencing remarks that they have considered and applied the Imposition Guideline. An elaborate analysis is not required, but the remarks must show that the necessary balancing exercise was undertaken. The court referred to Rex v Gates as recent confirmation of that approach.
3. The failure to conduct the exercise meant that the Court of Appeal had to decide for itself whether the term should be suspended. Factors favouring suspension included a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community and the applicant's assessment as presenting a low risk of reoffending. Some adverse impact on his partner was likely. The risk arising from alcohol-related violence and the applicant's previous breach of a community order were relevant, although the breach carried little weight because it was old and supervision had continued.
4. The decisive consideration was the sustained, unprovoked and drunken attack on at least five members of the public. The applicant had repeated opportunities to stop, attacked people who attempted to calm the situation, knocked victims to the ground and kicked a victim's head while he was vulnerable. The seriousness of the offending meant that appropriate punishment could be achieved only by immediate custody.
5. The court added that, following the change in the law for convictions on or after 22 March 2026, custodial terms of up to three years may be suspended, with a particular approach for terms of 12 months or less. Regardless of the date of conviction or length of term, the sentencing remarks must demonstrate consideration and application of the Imposition Guideline.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2026] EWCA Crim 701 — leave to appeal granted, but the appeal dismissed. The court found an error in failing to consider suspension, conducted the balancing exercise itself and upheld immediate custody.
• Central Criminal Court: On 18 March 2026 the Recorder sentenced the applicant to concurrent terms totalling two years' imprisonment and imposed a four-year restraining order.