Success in the Court of Appeal for Gabrielle Coates

On the 9th June 2026, Gabrielle Coates represented the Respondent/Offender in the Court of Appeal in R v Christy.

In Attorney General’s Reference (R v Christy) [2026] EWCA Crim 764, the Court granted the Solicitor General leave to refer sentence as unduly lenient but ultimately treated the lengthy and partly unexplained delay as exceptional and, exercising its residual discretion and declined to amend the community order.

Mr Christy pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court on 5 January 2026 to two counts of possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and one count of possession of criminal property, contrary to section 329(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Her Honour Judge Rayfield imposed concurrent 12-month community orders with a requirement of 150 hours’ unpaid work, together with the statutory surcharge and forfeiture of £300.

The offending arose from a police stop in Wakefield on 21 May 2021. Officers recovered four wraps of diamorphine, eleven wraps of cocaine, £300 in cash and three mobile telephones containing messages consistent with street-level drug supply. Although Mr Christy initially maintained the drugs were for personal use, he ultimately pleaded guilty on a basis accepted by the prosecution that, following the death of his grandmother and his partner’s miscarriage, he had begun dealing on a limited basis to fund his own addiction, deriving only modest financial benefit.

A significant feature of the case was the delay between the offence and sentence. Proceedings were substantially prolonged because the police failed for approximately two years to access the Defendant’s telephone, owing to a failure by the police to inform the Digital Forensic Unit. By the date of the sentence, more than four and a half years had elapsed since the offence.

The Solicitor General submitted that the sentence fell outside the range reasonably available to the sentencing judge. While accepting that the delay warranted criticism, it was argued that it could not justify a departure from the Sentencing Council guideline to the extent of avoiding immediate custody altogether. The Solicitor General contended that the appropriate notional sentence was no lower than three years’ imprisonment, reduced to 27 months following credit (25%) for his plea, and argued that insufficient findings had been made as to the actual detrimental impact of the delay.

On behalf of the respondent, Ms Coates submitted that the delay was unreasonable, largely unexplained and detrimental, in that Mr Christy had been unable to have contact with his children because of action by social care and unable to see his newborn child, and invited the court, even if the sentence were found unduly lenient, to exercise its discretion not to increase it.

The court restated the principles governing section 36, drawn from Attorney General’s Reference (R v Egan) [2022] EWCA Crim 1751 and Attorney General’s Reference (No 4 of 1989), namely that the court does not sentence afresh, that a sentence is unduly lenient only where it falls outside the range reasonably open to the judge, that the court retains a discretion even where a sentence is unduly lenient, and that double jeopardy may have a residual role. The court saw force in some of the Solicitor General’s submissions but was not persuaded that the sentence was unduly lenient, the judge having been entitled to treat the delay as exceptional, in part unexplained and detrimental in its effect. In any event, the court concluded that it would exercise its discretion not to increase the sentence, having regard to the time elapsed, the imprisonment already served, which might have reduced an earlier overall sentence on totality, the respondent’s compliance with the community order, the impact of immediate custody on his family, his having become drug free, and his stable employment.

In short, the court granted leave but, treating the lengthy and partly unexplained delay as exceptional and exercising its residual discretion, declined to disturb the community order.

The Judge commended Gabrielle for filing helpful written submissions in advance of the hearing and for expanding them during the hearing.

Contact the clerks to instruct Gabrielle Coates.

Gabrielle Coates was instructed by Becky Coyle of Priestley Legal.