R v Jayden Berry [2026] EWCA Crim 747

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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Venue Royal Courts of Justice

Date Wednesday, 3 June 2026

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Before

LORD JUSTICE POPPLEWELL

MR JUSTICE LINDEN

MRS JUSTICE BRUNNER DBE

Between

REXCrown

Between

JAYDEN BERRY

__________

Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,

Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

_________

MR D BISHOP appeared for Applicant

_________

J U D G M E N T

[1]On 2 March 2026 the applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Cardiff to possessing a Class A drug, cocaine, with intent to supply. On 17 April 2026 he was sentenced to 27 months’ detention in a young offender institution. He appears before us seeking permission to appeal that sentence, following referral by the Registrar. The Facts

[2]The applicant was 18 at the time of the offence and sentence. On 9 December 2025, police officers searched his home in Newport. In his bedroom they found a snap bag containing 12 wraps of cocaine with a street value of £390, some empty snap bags and an empty bag smelling of cannabis. The applicant was not at the address, but was arrested on 5 February 2026. His phone was analysed. One message referred to “sales” but there were no messages to users advertising the sale of drugs. No cash was seized.

[3]The applicant denied the offence in interview and then answered no comment. He pleaded guilty at the first hearing in the Crown Court. He had no previous convictions, a youth caution in 2021 and a conditional youth caution in 2024 for non-drug related offences. Sentencing

[4]At the sentencing hearing, the prosecution submitted that the applicant’s culpability was at the top end of the lesser role category or the lower end of the significant role category in the Sentencing Council Guideline in relation to drug offences (“the Drug Guideline”).

[5]There was a detailed pre-sentence report before the sentencing judge. The applicant had been expelled from school. He reported that he had sold drugs to friends in order to fund his own drug habit, but that he had stopped selling drugs before the police search, and the drugs found by police were ones which he had forgotten about. He said he had stopped taking drugs with the support of his mother and he had been offered an apprenticeship opportunity.

[6]The applicant disclosed a history of mental health difficulties, and described experiences of depression and anxiety to the probation officer. A local Forensic Psychiatry Team confirmed that the applicant and his mother had sought support before the offending in 2024, in relation to longstanding mental health concerns. He was referred to CAMHS for therapy, which he started in September 2024. After four sessions he had no further contact with services. It was noted that he appeared particularly vulnerable to life events, which exacerbate his anxiety.

[7]The author of the pre-sentence report determined that the likelihood of reconviction was low. His thinking and behaviour appear to have been shaped by his young age, emotional instability, and substance misuse. The author observed that:

"his actions reflect impulsivity, poor problem solving, and a focus on short term coping strategies typical of his age and circumstances"

. Probation intervention was recommended to further strengthen thinking and decision making skills, and it was said that custody could limit the applicant’s opportunities to develop problem solving skills, exercise self-control and make independent choices. He may be influenced by the more criminally mature which would have a negative impact on his current motivation and his developing insight into his offending. The author recommended two requirements: a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) Stepping Stones Toolkit to address thinking skills, attitudes and emotional wellbeing and unpaid work to prepare him for the routine of future employment.

[8]In passing sentence,

the judge said:

"It is plain to me that there was an element of profit motive in your selling, albeit it may well be that in part you were seeking to support your own drug usage through what you were doing. You are only 18 years old, you have no previous convictions, and I accept that your supply to others was relatively modest. But those who deal in Class A drugs, whatever their age or whatever their sex, must appreciate that if they are caught, they will go to prison. You are no exception. I keep the sentence I impose upon you to the bare minimum, consistent with my public duty and the gravity of the offence that you have admitted. I take the view that this is either towards the bottom end of significant role and/or falling just within lesser role. I give you credit for your guilty plea, 25%, entered at the Plea and Case Management Hearing. I take the lowest starting point that I can, since it is my duty to impose no greater a sentence upon you than I deem to be necessary. My starting point is one of 36 months or 3 years’ custody, from which you earn a discount of 9 months, resulting in a sentence of 27 months’ custody."

Grounds of Appeal

[9]The grounds of appeal are, in short, that(i) no reduction was applied to reflect the applicant’s age;

(ii) no reduction was applied to reflect the applicant’s mitigation, and

(iii) no proper consideration was given to suspending the sentence (noting that at the time of the sentence only sentences of 24 months or under could be suspended). The resulting sentence, it is said, was manifestly excessive. Discussion

[10]The starting point taken by the judge of three years is the starting point within the Sentencing Guideline for an offender within the ‘lesser role’ culpability who is selling directly to drug users. The category range is two years to four-and-a-half years. No issue is taken with that categorisation, and we agree with it.

[11]The sentencing remarks make no reference to mental health issues or the substantial personal mitigation, save for the applicant’s lack of previous convictions. The sentencing remarks make no reference to the effect of the applicant’s age or maturity. They do not reflect the long-established principle, reflected in sentencing guidelines, that the age and maturity of a young adult offender is a highly relevant consideration at sentence. The result of that approach, and of a lack of reduction for mitigation, was a manifestly excessive sentence.

[12]We have taken note of the following Sentencing Council Guidelines:

[13]First, we have regard to a mitigating feature within the Drug Guideline. The drop-down box relating to the mitigating feature of “Age and/or lack of maturity (which may be applicable to offenders aged 18-25)” reads in part as follows:

"Age and/or lack of maturity can affect: a. the offender’s responsibility for the offence and b. the effect of the sentence on the offender. Either or both of these considerations may justify a reduction in the sentence. The emotional and developmental age of an offender is of at least equal importance to their chronological age (if not greater). In particular young adults (typically aged 18-25) are still developing neurologically and consequently may be less able to: c. evaluate the consequences of their actions d. limit impulsivity e. limit risk taking."

[14]Secondly, we have regard to the Sentencing Council Guideline for Sentencing Children and Young People. The applicability section of that guideline provides that it “applies to sentencing those aged under 18 at the date of finding of guilt, but many of the principles will also be relevant to sentencing young adults (aged 18-25)”. We have found a number of principles within that guideline of relevance in this case, particularly in the light of the pre-sentence report which highlights the immaturity of the applicant at the time of the offending.

[15]Thirdly, we have regard to the Sentencing Council Guideline for the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences (“the Imposition Guideline”), and in particular the section headed “Sentencing young adult offenders (typically 18-25 years)”. We note, in particular, the principle that courts should place particular emphasis on rehabilitation as a purpose of sentencing for young adults. We note the reminder that young adults in the criminal justice system have disproportionately disadvantaged backgrounds including disrupted education, compared to their peers in the general population, and have higher levels of mental disorders which can increase vulnerability.

[16]Fourthly, we have regard to the Sentencing Council Guideline for Sentencing Offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments. The guideline confirms that a formal diagnosis is not always required, and that in assessing whether the impairment or disorder has any impact on sentencing, the approach should be individualistic and focused on the issues in the case. Mental health issues can affect culpability where there is sufficient connection between the offender’s impairment or disorder and the offending behaviour. The court must have regard to any additional impact of a custodial sentence on the offender because of an impairment or disorder.

[17]Taking all of those guidelines into account, we have considered what the appropriate sentence should be. We adopt the same starting point of three years. We do not identify any aggravating features. We make a significant reduction to reflect the applicant’s age and lack of maturity at the time of the offence. We make a further reduction to reflect the substantial personal mitigation, including the applicant’s lack of previous convictions, remorse, steps to address his addiction, difficult background (including his low educational attainment) and prospects of training. We are not satisfied that the applicant’s mental health and developmental issues are linked to the offending, and so they do not reduce his culpability. They remain relevant to this sentencing exercise in terms of the likely effect of sentence on him: we accept that he would be particularly vulnerable in custody and susceptible to influences as identified in the pre-sentence report.

[18]Nevertheless, this was Class A drug-dealing, and crosses the custody threshold. We conclude that the appropriate sentence after a trial would be two years' detention. We agree that 25% credit for guilty plea was appropriate, resulting in a term of 18 months.

[19]We are persuaded that the resulting sentence of 18 months should be suspended. We place particular emphasis on rehabilitation as a purpose of sentencing for this young adult who had recently turned 18 at the time of the offence, following the Imposition Guideline. None of the factors in the Imposition Guideline which militate against suspension apply in this case. Many of the factors in favour of suspension apply, namely a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community, the absence of a high risk of reoffending and strong personal mitigation.

[20]Accordingly, we give leave, allow the appeal, and quash the sentence of 27 months' detention in a young offender institution. We substitute a sentence of 18 months' detention in a young offender institution, suspended for 12 months from the date of sentence. There will be 15 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) sessions and Unpaid Work of 100 hours. That figure has been adjusted to take account of the time spent in detention. The ancillary orders were not challenged and remain in force. 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