R v Ricardo Cassanova [2026] EWCA Crim 734

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 is not to 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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Between
R EXCrown
London
WC2A 2LL
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT ISLEWORTH
(MISS RECORDER DARLOW KC) [91HQ0722626]
Case No 2026/01057/A3 Tuesday 19 May 2026
[2026] EWCA Crim 734
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELL
MR JUSTICE GOOSE
MR JUSTICE SAINI
____________________
- v –
Between
RICARDO CASSANOVA____________________Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)___________________Miss L McGarr appeared for Appellant___________________J U D G M E N TDate 2026-05-19
[1]This is an appeal against sentence brought with the leave of the single judge by Ricardo Cassanova, who is aged 21.[2]On 21 March 2026, following his committal for sentence after previously having pleaded guilty before the magistrates' court, he appeared before Miss Recorder Darlow KC in the Crown Court at Isleworth and was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment for one offence of being concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of a Class B drug, contrary to section 170(2), (3) and (4) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. The appellant was also made the subject of consequential orders, including an order for forfeiture and destruction of the drugs (the subject matter of the offending), and a Foreign Travel Restriction Order imposed under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. We shall return to that order in due course.

The Offence

[3]On 1 February 2026 the appellant, who had visited Bangkok in Thailand, returned to the United Kingdom at London Heathrow Airport, terminal 2. He was in possession of two suitcases as he sought to pass through Customs. He had removed the bag tags from the suitcases and had placed them in his pockets. They were recovered from him during his subsequent search by Customs officers.[4]He confirmed to the officers that he had been on holiday in Thailand; that he had travelled alone; and that he had packed the bags himself. Both suitcases were observed to be covered in dried glue. Once opened they contained lots of vacuum packed cannabis with a total net weight of 24 kilograms and a street value of up to £720,000.[5]When he was interviewed, the appellant made no comment to all questions asked of him. He subsequently pleaded guilty at his first appearance in court.

Sentencing

[6]The Recorder identified that the offence fell between category 2 and category 3 harm within the Drugs Guideline, and with elements of both significant and lesser roles in terms of culpability.[7]Category 2 harm is based upon an indicative weight of 40 kilograms of cannabis; whilst category 3 harm is based on six kilograms.[8]In relation to culpability, the elements of "significant role" were that the appellant had some awareness of the scale of the operation, given that these were two cases of a substantial quantity of drugs which were handed to him to take through Customs; and that he had an expectation of significant financial advantage in terms of the payment he was to receive from those who had organised the shipment. The elements of lesser harm included that he had no influence on others in the organisation and had some degree of naivety.[9]The Recorder adopted category 3 harm and "significant role", but with some downward adjustment to reflect the lesser role factors. At paragraph 3D of her sentencing remarks, the Recorder said the following:
"For category 3, therefore, the starting point would be one of two years for a significant role, [and] a category range of 18 months to three years. However, that requires an upward adjustment within the range because the category 3 is based on an indicative weight of six kilograms, but you imported 24 kilograms. A downward adjustment is to reflect the lesser role features in this case."
[10]At page 4B the Recorder stated:
"I accept the mitigating factors put forward by your counsel, including that this was isolated offending, there was an element of vulnerability in view of your age. I accept that you were, of course, of previous good character. I take into account all the matters that have been urged on your behalf. I have read character references, which speak of you in very positive terms – sources such as Christian Action Housing, Quorum Voices in Action. You benefit from the support of your mother."
[11]The Recorder then imposed a sentence before guilty plea discount of two years' imprisonment, which was reduced by one third to the sentence which was imposed of 16 months' imprisonment.

The Grounds of Appeal

[12]On behalf of the appellant, Miss McGarr, for whose submissions we are grateful, relied on two grounds of appeal: first, that an incorrect starting point of two years was taken before the guilty plea discount; and secondly, that the Recorder failed to give sufficient weight to the available mitigation, namely, the appellant's age, lack of previous convictions, remorse, working and studying, and to the character references.[13]In oral submissions, Miss McGarr argued that the Recorder appeared not to provide any discount to the sentence to reflect the mitigation, having increased the sentence to reflect the higher harm, and reducing it for the lesser role elements of culpability. It is submitted, therefore, that the sentence should have been reduced to one of 18 months' imprisonment, before further reducing the sentence for the guilty plea.

Discussion and Conclusion

[14]In sentencing the appellant, the Recorder carefully considered the contrasting features of the appellant's offending with the categories of harm and culpability within the drugs guideline. The appellant accepts that there were reasons for increasing a sentence from a starting point based upon category 3 harm to reflect the greater quantity of drugs involved, as well as the need for some reduction in respect of the elements of lesser role in terms of culpability. The Recorder plainly undertook that process whilst adopting category 3 harm, which was favourable to the appellant.[15]The submission that the Recorder failed to take into account the appellant's mitigation when she concluded that the sentence before guilty plea discount should be one of two years' imprisonment appears to misinterpret what was said by the Recorder. As we have referred to above, the Recorder increased the sentence from the starting point for a category 3 "significant role" of two years' imprisonment, and, then applied a downward adjustment to reflect the features of "lesser role" culpability. This does not mean, however, that they were equally treated. Further, the mitigating factors identified on behalf of the appellant were taken into account, which led, in our view, to the resulting sentence of two years' imprisonment before guilty plea reduction. In the circumstances, therefore, we do not find that the Recorder failed to take into account the appellant's mitigation.[16]Was there sufficient weight given to the mitigation? In our judgment there was. The sentence of 24 months' imprisonment for importation of a substantial quantity of drugs, after guilty plea discount, resulted in 16 months' imprisonment. We are not persuaded that such a sentence was arrived at by error or resulted in an excessive term.[17]No criticism is made of the refusal by the Recorder to suspend the sentence of imprisonment which was imposed. This frank concession on the appellant's behalf is to be commended, given that the Recorder plainly considered the issue in accordance with the appropriate imposition guideline. Accordingly, therefore, we are not persuaded that the sentence imposed was either wrong in principle or excessive.[18]Before concluding this appeal, we must correct the Foreign Travel Restriction Order which was imposed for 12 months, to begin on the date of release from custody. The making of such an order was entirely appropriate, but a term of 12 months was less than the statutory minimum contained within section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which is one of two years' duration. Accordingly, a 12 month order was not lawful.[19]However, we are not permitted to increase the order to make it good because to do so would increase the length of the order with its punitive elements and cause us to fall foul within section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Therefore, we must quash the Foreign Travel Restriction Order made in this case.[20]Save for that correction, this appeal against sentence is dismissed. ____________________________ 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 Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________