R v Nicole France [2026] EWCA Crim 331

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2026] EWCA Crim 331Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Tuesday 24 February 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE FRASERMRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBBHIS HONOUR JUDGE LEONARD KC(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REXCrownV
Between
NICOLE FRANCE__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MR M BUCKLAND appeared for Applicant._________JUDGMENTMRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB:
[1]On 27 October 2025 in the Crown Court at Chester, Nicole France pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled drug of Class A (MDMA) with intent to supply on 25 August 2023, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and possession of a controlled drug of Class B (ketamine) with intent to supply on the same date, contrary to the Act. She was sentenced on 8 December 2025 by Mr Recorder Rankin to 30 months' imprisonment on count 1, with 12 months concurrent on count 2. Ancillary orders for forfeiture and destruction of drugs and the deprivation of a mobile phone were made.[2]The application for leave to appeal against sentence has been referred to the Full Court by the Registrar. We give leave. Her grounds contend that the Recorder failed to give any or any adequate weight to substantial personal mitigation, including her role as a primary carer for a child with significant needs, that his starting point of 3 years was too high, and that proper application of the Sentencing Council Drugs Offences Guideline, the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Guideline and the principles in R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214, should have led to a materially lower sentence which was not to be served immediately.[3]On 25 August 2023 at approximately 6.30 pm, the appellant (then aged 50) was stopped at the South entrance to the Creamfields Festival after a passive drugs dog indicated on her. Before any physical search the appellant stated candidly that she had concealed drugs within her vagina at the instruction of an unknown male, who met her in a pub and offered her a festival ticket in exchange for taking them through security. She produced a package containing 17.3 grams of ketamine and 24.9 grams of MDMA. Evidence from the police drugs expert established that the ketamine would yield about 24 deals valued at approximately £960 and the MDMA would yield around 35 deals worth approximately £1,400. A mobile phone was seized. It contained no records of drug supply, though a repeated message criticising her own previous crack cocaine use was present.[4]The appellant was interviewed the following day and answered "no comment". Having entered not guilty pleas at a PTPH and the case being set down for trial, her pleas were entered on the written basis approximately 6 weeks before the trial date. The basis of plea stated that she had a drug debt to a dealer in South London. She was told that she must take the drugs into Creamfields. Her role was only to return the drugs to the dealer inside the venue. She received a festival ticket and a reduction in her debt. This was an isolated incident and she told as much truth as she felt safe to do so when arrested.[5]This basis was accepted by the Crown and by the sentencing judge, who categorised her as a lesser role courier.[6]A community impact statement for the Creamfields Festival prepared by DC Neal Fleming described the festival as "a high risk environment for drugs supply", noting that police seized £58,500 worth of drugs from suspected suppliers in 2023. There were approximately 65000 attendees per day at the Festival. The venue uses extensive signage, surrender bins, detection dogs and policing resources to prevent drug offending, and drug trafficking poses significant risks to public health, safety and local communities.[7]The Recorder expressly treated this impact statement as a significant aggravating feature. The court had available two pre-sentence reports prepared in January and December 2025. The appellant was aged 53 at the time of sentence. She lived in Sutton. She had long-standing physical and mental health difficulties. She resides in a Housing Association property with her adult daughter and her 12-year-old son Ziggy, for whom she is the primary carer.[8]Her personal circumstances reveal significant vulnerabilities. She is blind in one eye, undergoing treatment to preserve vision in the other, she suffers from arthritis, mobility limitations and chronic pain. She experiences bladder and bowel incontinence affecting daily functioning. She has a history of domestic abuse resulting in PTSD and ongoing mental health needs. She has experienced social instability, trauma, bereavement and episodic substance misuse. In one of her pre-sentence interviews she expressed fear, remorse and a belief that being caught prevented harm to others saying:
"I'm glad that I got caught so the drugs did not go into the public"
. Despite her challenges she is studying for a degree in business management, having already completed substantial course work.[9]The prison report prepared in advance of this hearing indicates that she has struggled with imprisonment, emotionally, due to separation from her son. She has maintained an average but compliant custodial record and is working towards enhanced status.[10]The appellant's son has ADHD, behavioural issues, emotional vulnerabilities and a history of school suspensions and exclusions. Speech and language therapy assessments indicate he has difficulties with interpreting complex language and social emotional regulation. He is undergoing or awaiting several forms of support. These include outreach mentoring and daily check-ins, referral to the Glass House Project for children affected by parental imprisonment and a taskforce mental health support system within school. The boy's school reports a history of trauma, peer vulnerabilities and behavioural disregulation, with school staff emphasising the need for consistent adult boundaries and emotional containment, primarily provided by the appellant before her custody.[11]The appellant has a substantial criminal record with 17 convictions for 35 offences dating back to 2000. These include numerous shoplifting offences throughout the 2000s to 2020, occasional drug-related convictions, including possession of Class A cocaine in 2010 and a drug driving matter in 2023. There are a number of breaches of community orders and repeated non-compliance and low-level dishonesty offences consistent with addiction, poverty and instability. Since these matters she has been before the Magistrates' Court twice, in December 2024 and January 2025 for shop theft and was sentenced to community orders with rehabilitation activity requirements.[12]The pre-sentence reports emphasise that her record appears to be linked to financial need, trauma, addiction, poor consequential thinking and mental health instability rather than organised or commercial offending. Inevitably her previous convictions aggravated the current offences but neither pre-sentence report considered that she posed a high risk of causing violent or serious harm. She was assessed as having a medium risk of reoffending in some assessments, low risk in others and low risk of serious harm across categories.[13]In his written and oral submissions before the Recorder and as reflected in the uploaded Prosecution Opening Note, prosecution counsel emphasised the following matters as aggravating features relevant to the categorisation of seriousness. Firstly, the nature of the offending and the drugs involved. The appellant was apprehended taking two controlled drugs into a large scale festival environment where the potential harm was acute. Quantities seized were capable of producing 59 individual deals together worth over £2000.[14]Secondly, the festival context significantly increased the potential for harm. The Creamfields community impact statement demonstrated the risks posed to tens of thousands of festival goers, the enormous scale of policing operations required to prevent serious injury or fatalities and a history of deaths associated with MDMA consumption at the event. Accordingly, the appellant's conduct added to the cumulative burden on emergency services, the risk of drug-related harm and the potential for disorder inherent in a closed market festival environment. Thirdly, while the Crown accepted the basis of plea, that the appellant was acting as a courier under pressure from a dealer to whom she was indebted, counsel nonetheless emphasised the drugs were intended to be handed back to a dealer who would then sell them directly on to users. Although she was not directly supplying festival goers the drugs were intended for onward supply to users and this knowledge kept her culpability firmly within the commercial drugs supply framework.[15]Counsel accepted that her role fell within the lesser role category under the Sentencing Council Drug Offences Guideline but emphasised this did not preclude a sentence at the top of the category 4 range when aggravated features were present. As well as those already mentioned there was a failure to desist despite extensive published warnings, surrender bins and the public information campaign. The prosecution therefore invited the court to adopt a sentence materially above the guideline starting point of 18 months.[16]On behalf of the appellant Mr Buckland advanced mitigation in writing and orally. These submissions form the core for the grounds of appeal. He emphasised that the appellant acted strictly as a courier under pressure motivated only by a drug debt owed to her dealer with no element of personal profit, planning or personal commercial gain. The drugs were not individually packaged. This was consistent with her account. She was not connected to wider criminality nor did she possess communications or paraphernalia associated with drug dealing. Other than the message referencing her past crack cocaine use her phone download was free of incriminating material.[17]The appellant's personal mitigation was said to be unusually strong comprising, as we summarised, her role as primary carer for a vulnerable child and being a woman suffering from PTSD arising from years of domestic abuse as well as anxiety, sleep disturbance and chronic health issues. A custodial sentence risked significant harm to her son and exacerbating her physical and mental conditions and hindering her recovery. Furthermore, the prison estate may struggle to meet her complex needs and so imprisonment posed disproportionate hardship. Her family’s home would also, it was believed, be at risk.[18]In addition before arrest and during the lead up to sentence it was argued the appellant had engaged in significant rehabilitative steps such as cessation of drug use, compliance with probation interviews, consistent engagement in higher education working towards her degree and she had demonstrated remorse and insight into the risks of drug supply. The pre-sentence reports noted a real prospect of rehabilitation in the community and recommended community-based interventions, observing that custody may be counterproductive.[19]Correctly, the Recorder's attention was drawn to the well-known principles in R v Petherick to which we will return. That authority was the basis for the submission that this case involved compelling reasons to depart from immediate custody as a community order or suspended sentence order could have met the justice of the case.[20]The Recorder began by observing that: "The facts speak for themselves", identifying the appellant's age, her attendance at the festival and the presence of the drugs. He noted her phone contained the message indicating personal drug use but nothing of supply. He recorded the procedural history. The trial was fixed for December 2025 and she was entitled to 15 per cent credit. He summarised her accepted basis of plea including the matters that we have ourselves set out.[21]The Recorder next addressed the appellant's antecedents predominantly for dishonesty. He acknowledged that references provided on her behalf described her as "a lady of some intelligence" with ongoing studies and he accepted she had complied with the preparation of the pre-sentence reports and lived within domestically settled circumstances. He recognised the submissions concerning her son, stating he required her help and assistance but admonished that she "[was] not thinking of him when you did what you did".[22]The Recorder accepted the appellant fell within the lesser role category of the guideline, performing a lower function under direction. She was used by pressure, coercion, intimidation, grooming or control. He then considered the appropriate harm category. Although he initially hesitated over whether the supply was directed to users, ultimately he found that because the drugs were to be returned to the dealer who would then sell them on, she should be categorised as a category 4 offender, albeit at the top of that range. From the starting point of 18 months he found the offence aggravated by previous convictions and the impact statement which he described as of significance.[23]The Recorder engaged expressly with the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences Guideline posing the statutory questions. He concluded that custody was not avoidable and could not be suspended. His reasoning stressed that the drugs, especially Class A, caused profound harm, destroy lives, damage communities, require extensive police resources and undermine the festival environment. He emphasised the need for general deterrence, stating that:
"Those who involve themselves in this kind of behaviour must conclude... that if caught custody will follow."
He then explained his approach to sentence construction. He adopted a sentence of 3 years incorporating the aggravating features. He then stated:
"… really the only mitigation you have, and that is your plea"
. For that he applied a 15 per cent reduction amounting to 6 months resulting in a final sentence of 30 months. No issue is taken in this case with the proportion of discount.[24]It is striking that the Recorder's treatment of personal and other mitigation was brief. Although he referenced the appellant's son, her mental health issues, personal circumstances, studies, remorse and compliance, he concluded that none of these amounted to meaningful mitigation capable of reducing the sentence.[25]It is necessary to summarise the principles in Petherick as drawn from the judgment of the Vice-President (Hughes LJ). First, the sentencing of a parent inevitably engages Article 8 ECHR rights of both the offender and their children. The welfare and impact on dependent children is a distinct consideration to which full weight must be given. This was not a new principle. The Court reviewed consistent authority which has repeatedly affirmed the effect of imprisonment on dependent children is a major feature to be considered in every sentencing decision where relevant. Secondly, the Court endorsed the structured three-stage proportionate analysis derived from Lady Hale in HH(Tanzania): (1)Is there an interference with family life? (2)Is that interference lawful and in pursuit of a legitimate aim? (3)Is the interference proportionate having balanced the gravity of the offence with the impact on the child?[26]In sentencing, the first two questions are usually easily answered. The third question of proportionality is the critical one and requires careful case specific evaluation. Thirdly, Petherick makes plain that serious offences may still require immediate custody despite the presence of dependent children. However, the effect on children may justify reducing an otherwise proportionate custodial term. There is no standard reduction, no formula and no percentage. The adjustment is fact dependent and left to the informed judgment of the court. The Court emphasised that even where a mother's imprisonment is unavoidable, the combination of personal mitigation and child impact may properly lead to a shorter sentence. Fourthly, the judgment stressed that where custody is genuinely unavoidable the threshold may still be crossed even in the presence of dependent children. However, the more compelling the care-giving responsibilities the stronger the obligation on the court to scrutinise whether custody is truly necessary and ensure that the length of any term imposed does not exceed what is strictly required for punishment, deterrence and fairness.[27]Finally, the Court also recognised that mothers are disproportionately affected by imprisonment, including through separation from very young children, disruption to bond formulation and the high risk of a child being taken into care, factors which further heighten the required scrutiny.[28]In Petherick itself, although an 8-year starting point was maintained, the Court of Appeal reduced the final custodial term by 18 months to reflect significant personal mitigation that is present, and the profound impact of imprisonment on the defendant's 2-year-old child. It follows that Petherick requires a sentencing judge to identify the impact of imprisonment on dependent children, evaluate its weight, explain expressly how it affects or why it does not affect sentence, and avoid dismissing such mitigation without reason analysis.[29]These principles apply directly to the appellant, who is the primary care giver of a vulnerable 12 year old, with diagnosed ADHD, behaviour challenges and trauma history and significant educational and emotional needs. It was therefore incumbent upon the sentencing judge to assess, weigh and articulate the significance of the child's welfare when determining whether custody is necessary and, if so, how long it should be.[30]The appellant advances in writing three principal grounds:(1) The starting point of 36 months was too high.(2) The Recorder erred in finding that the appellant had no mitigation other than the guilty plea, failing to give any or proper weight to the extensive mitigation available and(3) The sentence imposed should have been suspended or alternatively should have been materially shorter given the mitigation.[31]Ground 2 is the central complaint that the Recorder misdirected himself by disregarding mitigation which was not only substantial but expressly supportive in both pre-sentence reports, the Defence Sentencing Note and the materials relating to the appellant's son. Grounds 1 and 3 are interconnected and correct assessment of mitigation and a proper application of Petherick and the Imposition Guideline would, it was argued, have resulted in a different calibration from the starting point, a different final term and potentially a different conclusion on suspension.[32]Mr Buckland's concise oral submissions before us can be encapsulated thus: the sentence did not take sufficiently into account the mitigation available and the sentence should be adjusted to reflect it. Decision[33]Plainly the Recorder was entitled to regard the festival context, the drug quantities, and the appellant's antecedents as aggravating features. The Crown's submission that the sentence above the category 4 starting point of 18 months was open to him was properly made. We are not persuaded that a starting point from a provisional sentence towards the top of the category range was incorrect given the context of the offending and the community impact. The need for a deterrent level sentence was a legitimate consideration. The error in this case arises from the Recorder's statement:
"... really the only mitigation you have, and that is your plea."
This was manifestly inconsistent with the material before him.[34]The Recorder failed to consider the welfare of the appellant's dependent and acknowledged this only to say that appellant, "was not thinking of him when you did what you did". That is not the correctly legal test. As Petherick teaches, the impact on the child, not the offender's prior thought processes is a distinct consideration.[35]The Recorder also failed to assess the appellant's physical and mental health issues which were extensive and evidenced as we have set out. None of these were analysed. The Recorder did not state whether he accepted them, how they were weighted or whether they merited a reduction in length. The pre-sentence reports considered the appellant had a real prospect of rehabilitation, supported by remorse, educational engagement, cessation of drug use and motivation to change. Again, the Recorder did not address these findings. Instead he concluded there was no mitigation contrary to the professional assessment before him.[36]The Court accepts that the Recorder was right to say that drugs supply offences at festivals will normally attract immediate custody. However, the Imposition Guideline and Petherick require the court to consider whether custody is truly unavoidable having regard to the interests of dependent children, the capacity for rehabilitation and the disproportionate impact of custody on vulnerable offenders. A failure to carry out that structural analysis affected the conclusion on suspension. This does not mean that the sentence must be suspended but it does mean that the conclusion reached was not properly reasoned. Accordingly, the sentence is wrong in principle. The materials before us show that although the son is missing his mother intensely, he is being cared for in the family home by the appellant's partner and is attending school.[37]In our judgment, a starting point of 18 months in the guideline elevated within the range to close to 3 years was correct. But the mitigation in this case was extensive and must be given meaningful effect by applying a downward adjustment from that provisional sentence. The personal circumstances, vulnerability, care-giving responsibilities and rehabilitation prospects are sufficiently compelling to justify a reduction of at least 8 months. This is consistent with the flexible fact-specific approach endorsed in Petherick, where mitigation affected dependent children may properly reduce the custodial term even where custody remains unavoidable. An approximately 15 per cent reduction rounded to 6 months leads to a custodial term of 22 months. The Imposition Guideline requires the Court to ask: is custody unavoidable? In our judgment, although this appellant has the mitigation set out, the offence remains the supply of Class A drugs into a large-scale festival environment. The custody threshold is clearly crossed. Having passed that threshold can the sentence be suspended? Suspension is supported by the presence of powerful personal mitigation and the other features that we have highlighted. A report from the child's school dated 23 February (the day before this hearing) states that he is finding visiting the appellant in prison very hard and indeed increasingly hard as the weeks go by. This has led to a deterioration in his behaviour and an increase in his need for support sessions.[38]All these features are present and effective, but they must be balanced against the seriousness of the offence, the public safety risks associated with festival drug supply and the need for general deterrence in cases of organised drug importation into mass attendance venues.[39]Weighing all these matters appropriately the combination leads the Court to conclude that immediate custody was indeed required. A suspended sentence in this case would fail to reflect seriousness and would undermine deterrence in the context of festival drug trafficking.[40]For the reasons we have set out, this appeal against sentence is allowed, to the extent that the sentence of 30 months is quashed and replaced with a sentence of 22 months' imprisonment on count 1, a concurrent sentence of 12 months' imprisonment on count 2 is confirmed and the orders for forfeiture and destruction of the drugs and deprivation of the mobile phone remain in place. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE 41. Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk