R v Declan Winkless & Anor [2026] EWCA Crim 904

[2026] EWCA Crim 904Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 30 June 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMRS JUSTICE CUTTSHIS HONOUR JUDGE LICKLEY KC
REFERENCE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER s.36 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988
REX
Between
DECLAN WINKLESSALICIA NOVAS
Alistair Richardson appeared for Solicitor GeneralLiam Muir appeared for Respondent Defendant WinklessDale Beeson appeared for Respondent Defendant Novas
Approved Judgment
[1]His Majesty's Solicitor General applies for leave to refer two sentences which were imposed on the two offenders and which she regards as unduly lenient. We give leave.[2]The sentences were passed by Her Honour Judge Rebecca Crane in the Crown Court at Northampton on 26 January 2026 after the offenders had pleaded guilty on an earlier occasion. As a result of their guilty pleas, Mr Winkless was entitled to a reduction in his sentence of 25% and Ms Novas was entitled to a reduction of one-third.[3]The offenders faced an indictment which contained seven counts. With the exception of Count 6, which concerned Mr Winkless only, the offences charged by the other counts were committed jointly, albeit with the offenders taking different roles.[4]Ms Novas was aged 19 when she pleaded guilty to the offences on the indictment. Consequently, as she was aged under 21 when convicted, her sentences should have been stated to be sentences of ‘detention in a young offender institution’. In the court below her sentences were stated to be sentences of ‘imprisonment’, which was wrong. For the avoidance of doubt, we shall refer to her sentences as being sentences of ‘detention in a young offender institution’ throughout.[5]In summary the offences and sentences passed were as follows. Dealing first with Mr Winkless: i) On Count 1, which was an offence of misconduct in public office, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment. ii) On Count 2, which was another offence of misconduct in public office, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment concurrent. iii) On Count 3, which was an offence of unauthorised transmission of an image or sound from a prison, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 11 months' imprisonment concurrent. iv) On Count 4, which was an offence of conveying an article into or out of prison (List A), on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 2 years and 3 months' imprisonment concurrent. v) On Count 5, which was an offence of conveying an article into or out of prison (List B), on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment concurrent. vi) On Count 6, which was an offence of unauthorised possession of a device capable of transmission or receiving images or sound by electronic communication, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment concurrent. vii) On Count 7, which was an offence of unauthorised transmission of an image or sound from a prison, on his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment concurrent. His total sentence was therefore 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment, which was ordered to be served consecutively to the sentence that he was already serving. Turning to Ms Novas: viii) On Count 1, on her plea of guilty she was sentenced to 3 years' detention. ix) On Count 2, on her plea of guilty she was sentenced to 3 years' detention. x) On Count 3, on her plea of guilty she was sentenced to 10 months' detention. xi) On Count 4, on her plea of guilty she was sentenced to 2 years' detention. xii) On Count 5, on her plea of guilty she was sentenced to 10 months' detention. xiii) On Count 7, on her plea of guilty she was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment concurrent. Her total sentence was therefore 3 years' detention.

The factual background

[6]Mr Winkless is now aged 31 and was at all material times a serving prisoner at HMP Five Wells. Ms Novas is now 21 and was a serving prison officer at the prison. Between at least early November and the end of December 2024 when she was 18 going on 19, Ms Novas and Mr Winkless engaged in an inappropriate romantic and sexual relationship that formed the basis for Count 1. In the course of that relationship, Ms Novas brought phones and cannabis to the prison for Mr Winkless. In addition to their inappropriate sexual relationship, they contacted each other very frequently by phone. The feature of the relationship that this Reference concentrates on is that Ms Novas identified another prisoner as an informer and gave Mr Winkless his name.[7]Prior to her deployment, Ms Novas completed a nine-week training course, which included modules addressing corruption, conditioning and bribery.[8]On 10 September 2024, Mr Winkless was moved on to A Wing, where Ms Novas principally worked.[9]By 6 November 2024, Mr Winkless and Ms Novas were in direct electronic communication. Ms Novas had provided her personal telephone number to Mr Winkless, who during the indictment period was operating at least four telephone numbers from inside the prison. Provision of her telephone number formed part of Count 1. Messages subsequently recovered showed that their communication had begun before 6 November 2024. The telephone contact between them was extensive. There were about 2,873 contacts in total during the indictment period.[10]Count 3 reflected contact between them prior to Ms Novas's arrest on 22 December 2024. Count 7 reflected contact which continued after her arrest while she was subject to police bail with conditions not to contact Mr Winkless and not to contact any serving prisoner.[11]Analysis of their messaging showed the following. i) Mr Winkless made it clear that he had romantic feelings for Ms Novas. He offered to buy her a coat and asked to see her on his forthcoming birthday. He asked for a birthday kiss. ii) On 9 November 2024, Mr Winkless asked Ms Novas to bring him a "spliff of some weed". Ms Novas initially declined because of recently increased prison security. Mr Winkless repeated that he had feelings for her. He persisted in requests for cannabis over the subsequent days. iii) On 14 November 2024, Ms Novas agreed to provide cannabis to Mr Winkless. It is clear that she delivered it to him because the following day he said that "the weed had me missing all day". Ms Novas said, "First and last I'm doing it though". Provision of cannabis on that occasion was the subject of Count 4. iv) On 16 November 2024, Mr Winkless again asked Ms Novas for a "B[irth]day snog". Ms Novas agreed to try to secure a move to Mr Winkless' landing. v) By 19 November 2024, a sexual relationship had begun between them. This and subsequent sexual activity formed part of Count 1. Mr Winkless pressed Ms Novas to have sexual intercourse. She must have agreed because messaging on 22 November 2024 included references by Mr Winkless to his sexual performance. Both offenders said they had enjoyed what took place between them. Further sexual activity took place the following day. They discussed what would happen if Ms Novas became pregnant. Mr Winkless said he wanted to send her £250 for a few drinks. vi) Later that day, Ms Novas revealed the identity of a prison informant, what the informant had said or would say, and told Mr Winkless that he was not currently suspected of wrongdoing by the prison authorities. That exchange formed the basis for Count 2. vii) The same day Mr Winkless asked Ms Novas for a "Kinder Egg". The following day he requested that she "chuck it on my bed again". Ms Novas replied that she would obtain one in the morning. viii) Mr Winkless said he wanted to buy her weekly gifts and asked, "Can we get together, that's how much I like u … im home in 10 months il treat u well in and out of jail". Mr Winkless also said he could arrange to have a phone and an ounce of cannabis delivered to her. He indicated that the cannabis would be for her to keep and asked her to bring the phone into prison for him. Ms Novas agreed. She also agreed to bring Mr Winkless tobacco and SIM cards. ix) On 25 November 2024, Ms Novas said she would purchase SIM cards but would not be able to provide tobacco. Mr Winkless later replied, "Thanks for them bits". x) Two days later there was a further discussion about tobacco being obtained. Further sexual activity appears to have taken place. Ms Novas asked Mr Winkless if he had enjoyed it. xi) The following day, on 28 November 2024, messaging showed the offenders had again had sexual intercourse. Ms Novas purchased a Motorola phone with a SIM card for Mr Winkless for £181.75. The following day they discussed how to bring the telephone into prison. That activity formed the subject of Count 5. xii) On 1 December 2024, a series of WhatsApp calls took place between the offenders. Messaging that followed referred to Mr Winkless having watched Ms Novas masturbate. xiii) On 3 December 2024, Mr Winkless sent two videos of the offenders engaging in sexual activity to three unknown users on Snapchat. Subsequent CCTV enquiries revealed that Ms Novas had entered Mr Winkless' cell that day, remaining there for nine minutes. The videos were subsequently recovered and exhibited. They showed, first, Ms Novas (in her prison officer uniform) and Mr Winkless engaging in sexual intercourse - Mr Winkless' position behind Ms Novas, her prison keys visible around her waist; second, Ms Novas (again in full prison officer uniform) performing oral sex upon Mr Winkless. xiv) On 7 December 2024, Ms Novas bought Mr Winkless a second mobile phone, he having broken the first one. xv) The next day Mr Winkless started to use the new telephone, also forming part of Count 5. xvi) On 14 December 2024, Ms Novas received a credit of £250 into her bank account from the partner of another prisoner. xvii) On 22 December 2024, Mr Winkless' cell was searched and the new mobile telephone was seized. That formed the subject matter of Count 6. An image relating to the bank transfer was found on the device. xviii) On 23 December 2024, the conversations were found on the telephone by prison staff.[12]The same day, the G4S media team were provided by a national newspaper with a copy of a video photo showing Ms Novas and Mr Winkless engaging in sexual acts. The videos recorded by Mr Winkless on 3 December 2024 had been further distributed and circulated to the national media.[13]Ms Novas was arrested that day at the prison. Her telephone was seized from her. The messages with Mr Winkless were found on it. Ms Novas was interviewed and answered all questions "no comment". She was bailed whilst the police investigation continued, with conditions not to contact Mr Winkless and not to have contact with any serving prisoner. Mr Winkless was transferred to HMP Peterborough.[14]The offenders resumed communication almost immediately. They interacted almost exclusively through telephone calls rather than messages. There were about 400 further contacts. This contact was represented by Count 7.[15]On 26 December 2024, Ms Novas resigned her position at HMP Five Wells.[16]On 13 May 2025, Ms Novas was further interviewed. She admitted communicating with Mr Winkless and entering into a sexual relationship with him. Ms Novas said sexual activity had occurred on up to four occasions. Ms Novas denied bringing any items into prison for him.[17]On 20 May 2025, Mr Winkless was arrested and interviewed. He answered "no comment" to all questions asked.[18]Both offenders were subsequently charged.

The offenders

[19]It is plain from the account we have given that Mr Winkless groomed and manipulated Ms Novas, whether or not he had feelings of affection for her. Ms Novas was much younger and was of previous good character but she had had specific training on corruption, conditioning and bribery.[20]A psychiatric report concluded that:
"Ms Novas had no history of serious mental illness. She had a good life at home. She had experienced a traumatic childhood and was groomed and sexually assaulted by a male family member. She was bullied and self-harmed between the ages of 12 and 14. She had once attempted suicide. She had features of an emotionally unstable personality disorder, which increased her vulnerability. Her mental state appeared stable."
[21]A pre-sentence report was prepared. Ms Novas told the author, "I know it was wrong, I just didn't think". The author said she displayed a lack of sound decision making. She presented a low risk of reoffending.[22]A number of character references were submitted on her behalf. We have read them and take them fully into account.[23]Mr Winkless had 16 sets of convictions for 31 offences. These principally involved offences of dishonesty, violence, threatening behaviour and relating to weapons. They included, in December 2016, possession of a handgun, for which he was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, and in October 2021, conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary and conspiracy to burgle, for which he was sentenced to 11 years and 3 months' imprisonment, which was the sentence he was serving at the time of these offences. For obvious reasons, there was no pre-sentence report in his case. None was necessary then and none is necessary now.

The sentencing hearing

[24]In its Sentencing Note the prosecution identified the revealing of information about the informant as a specific element of harm.[25]The judge had a statement from Ms Heather McLoughlin, Counter Corruption Manager of HMP Five Wells. She did not focus on the provision of information about the informant as a separate incident but she explained how corruption undermines the Prison Service's ability to break the cycle of reoffending, and fuels violence, debt and the illicit economy within prisons. It compromises public confidence in the prison service and it is a serious breach of trust for a member of staff to engage in corruption or any wrongdoing:
"Staff engaging in corruption are complicit in adding to crime in a setting where our primary goal is to remove prisoners away from this environment."

The sentencing remarks

[26]After setting out the factual basis of the offending, the judge first addressed Ms Novas. The judge described the contact between the offenders as "extensive". She accepted that Ms Novas was genuinely remorseful. She was naïve and immature. She was vulnerable to exploitation, given her age and lack of experience. However, she could easily have sought assistance from the prison authorities. Ms Novas failed to consider the potential impact of her actions on the safety of staff or the work of the prison. The judge observed that "even an inexperienced and naïve prison officer would know that prisoners who are suspected of being informants are often victims of very serious violence. Therefore, providing the name of such a person to Mr Winkless was extremely serious."[27]Turning to Mr Winkless, the judge referred to his previous record. She accepted that he was remorseful. He was older and able to manipulate Ms Novas. The offending occurred over a long period, including after Ms Novas's arrest. The judge considered it to be an aggravating factor that he shared videos of their sexual activities on social media.[28]The judge determined that both offenders' culpability was "high". She said:
"This was deliberate offending in multiple ways over an extended period. Ms Novas had had anti-corruption training. Ms Novas was in a position of trust which she breached. Cannabis and tobacco were supplied. Mr Winkless was provided with two phones. The contact between you continued even after Ms Novas's arrest, and Mr Winkless gave Ms Novas gifts and money."
[29]The harm or potential harm was similarly "high".

The judge made reference to a statement from Ms McLoughlin and explained that:

"She details how such offending undermines the ability of the prison to rehabilitate offenders, damages public trust and undermines prison security for both prisoners and staff. Providing intelligence and the name of an individual to Mr Winkless put another prisoner at serious risk and, again, undermined safety and security."
Mr Winkless' offending was aggravated by his previous convictions. Both of their offending was mitigated by remorse and mental health, which she considered mitigation rather than relevant to culpability. In Ms Novas's case, her age and immaturity were also mitigating factors.[30]The judge then went on to pass the sentences that we have recorded above. She did not give any indication as to the sentences she would have imposed after a trial before reduction for mitigation and guilty pleas, or why she structured the sentences in the way that she did. Mr Winkless' sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to the sentence he was already serving.

Additional materials available to the Court of Appeal

[31]A prison report on Mr Winkless records that he is an enhanced prisoner who has a positive relationship with the staff. In his meetings with the writers of the report he has always stated that he wants to become a productive member of society.[32]A prison report on Ms Novas records that she has demonstrated a strong motivation to engage positively with her sentence plan. Since arriving at HMP Downview, she has maintained a high level of engagement in purposeful activity and currently holds enhanced status. She is currently experiencing heightened anxiety because of the uncertainty about her sentence generated by this Reference. She is assessed as being someone who with continued support, particularly in relation to her mental health, is well placed to maintain her current progress.

The Solicitor General's submissions

[33]In each offender's case, the Solicitor General's core submission is that the sentence passed would have been justifiable and right for the offender's criminal conduct as charged but excluding Count 2. Count 2, however, is said to add an additional element of criminality that should have been reflected either in a consecutive sentence, or if all sentences were to be made concurrent, the sentence on the lead offence should have been increased significantly to reflect the additional criminality involved in Count 2. There was no such adjustment, with the result that the sentences passed were unduly lenient and should be increased by this court.[34]In the case of Ms Novas, the Solicitor General submits that the judge's notional sentence required a downward adjustment of approximately 20% to reflect her youth, her immaturity and her mitigation. If that were right, then the sentence of 3 years imposed on Ms Novas would have been equivalent to a notional sentence of 5 years and 7 months, before applying the reduction of 20% for personal mitigation and one-third for her guilty pleas. Unfortunately, though the judge listed a number of mitigating factors (to which we will refer below) she did not say and we cannot tell with any certainty what notional sentence the judge had in mind before adjusting downward for mitigation or what downwards adjustment she then made.[35]In Mr Winkless' case we can be confident that the notional sentence before reduction for plea was in the order of 54 months. Once again however, the judge did not indicate how she reached that notional sentence.

Mr Winkless' submissions

[36]Mr Beeson, who appeared for Mr Winkless in the court below as he has before us, submits that the sentence imposed by the judge was within the range that was reasonably open to her based on relevant sentencing guidelines. The judge correctly identified the aggravating and mitigating factors (e.g. plea, remorse, personal mitigation and totality) taking into account that he is already serving a lengthy prison sentence. Mr Beeson submits that the sentence is not lenient but rather is a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Ms Novas's submissions

[37]Mr Muir represents Ms Novas before us as he did in the court below. In mitigation he relies upon: i) Ms Novas's youth; ii) Her previous good character; iii) The evidence showing that Mr Winkless took the lead; iv) Her diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder, which he submits is linked to the offence and is not merely personal mitigation; v) The fact that the offending started after Ms Novas had been the victim of a sexual assault while at work in the prison, which increased her vulnerability; and vi) A history of trauma, as summarised in the psychiatric report, which is relevant to her vulnerability and as personal mitigation.[38]He accepts that the proper categorisation of both harm and culpability is "high", and that if all sentences are to be concurrent, a significant uplift is required to reflect the criminality involved in Count 2. That said, while he accepts that the sentence on Ms Novas was lenient, he does not accept that it was unduly lenient.

Discussion and resolution

[39]We are confident that it is not by pure coincidence that adjusting each offender's sentence for plea (but not mitigation) results in a notional sentence of 54 months or 4½ years. What we do not know is what overall notional sentence the judge had in mind before making any adjustments for mitigation in either case. Nor can we assume that the adjustment for mitigation would have been the same for each offender. To the contrary, it would have been wrong if the judge had made equivalent downward adjustments for each offender as their circumstances and mitigation are clearly different.[40]We touch first on the overall seriousness of the offending. It is sufficient to refer to two previous decisions of this court.[41]First, in Waddington [2015] EWCA Crim 367, this court upheld an aggregate sentence of 19 months after pleas of guilty had been entered at the PCMH , comprising 4 months (equivalent to 6 months before reduction for plea) for misconduct in public office, and 15 months (equivalent to 20 months before reduction for plea) for conveying a List B article into prison, where the appellant was aged 45 and of previous good character, the relationship was non-sexual and the List B article was ten phones. The court cited with approval paragraph 5 of the judgment of the court in McDade and Reynolds [2010] EWCA Crim 249, where the court said:
"A corrupt prison officer is much better placed than an outsider to find ways of defeating a prison security system. The effect of this activity is twofold. First, the discipline and order of the prison is undermined and with it the safety and human rights of the inmates. One of the three key objectives of the prison service is stated in these terms: 'Providing safe and well-ordered establishments in which we treat prisoners humanely, decently and lawfully.' Secondly, those prison officers who are true to the trust [reposed] in them and resist such attempts to corrupt them will suffer. They will come under suspicion themselves. They will be subject to closer scrutiny and checks. They will also naturally resent the rewards their corrupt colleagues enjoy."
For these reasons, amongst others, it is right that with offences such as these there is always a strong deterrent function in the sentencing process.[42]Second, in R v Bennett [2019] EWCA Crim 762, the Court of Appeal considered the case of a female prison officer who had inappropriate telephone and direct sexual contact with four prisoners. B also passed information to inmates about how they could secure cell moves, which cells might be subject to future search, and how, when and where a phone locking system would be in operation. B finally brought and attempted to bring into custody quantities of cannabis which could have been worth £10,000 in prison. William Davis J explained that the judge had adopted a sentence of 9½ years' imprisonment, before reduction of a full third for the appellant's plea. The final sentence of 6 years 6 months' imprisonment was upheld. Williams Davis J explained at paragraph 26:
"The judge in this case had to reflect each of the aspects of misconduct committed by the appellant. The bringing into prison of drugs and sexual misconduct with prisoners are features found in other cases. This case is unusual because of the information that this appellant was prepared to give to prisoners in relation to the security measures being taken at the prison. That fundamentally undermined the security of Aylesbury Young Offender Institution in a way that is not to be found in the other authorities to which we have been referred. This was a very severe sentence. But it was severe because of the need for deterrence and the different ways in which the appellant failed in her duty as a prison officer. Notwithstanding cogent submissions that have been made to us, we are unpersuaded that the sentence was manifestly excessive."
[43]We turn then to the offenders.[44]Mr Winkless was a seasoned criminal who was already serving a long sentence for two offences of conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. The history as we have summarised it demonstrates beyond doubt that he instigated the inappropriate behaviour and groomed Ms Novas: see the persistence of his persuading her to bring him cannabis, which she was clearly reluctant to do, and the giving of gifts, both of which we take to be classic signs of grooming. The grooming and corrupting of a serving prison officer is a materially aggravating feature. Her vulnerabilities made her an early target for his actions. He has no significant personal mitigation, though he expressed remorse.[45]Ms Novas, by contrast, had significant personal mitigation. As the judge identified, she was naïve and immature and genuinely remorseful. The psychiatric report and the PSR evidence a difficult and troubled background, with a history of serious self-harm and substance abuse. Given her age and inexperience, she was vulnerable to being manipulated. That said, we bear in mind at all times the judge's observation that even an inexperienced and naïve prison officer would know that prisoners who are known to be informants are often victims of very serious violence. The judge was undoubtedly right to refer to the passing of the information about the informant as "extremely serious". So the proper balance has to be struck between her youth and other personal information on the one hand and the undoubted seriousness of her conduct as a corrupt prison officer on the other.[46]In our judgment, the least aggregate sentence that would have been appropriate for Ms Novas after a trial would have been in the region of 6 to 7 years. The greatest reduction that could properly have been given for her age and other personal mitigation would, in our judgment, have been one-third, though some judges would undoubtedly have afforded her less. Starting with a notional sentence of 6 to 7 years before mitigation and plea, and applying one-third for mitigation, would reduce the notional sentence to approximately 48 to 56 months. A further reduction of one-third for her plea would reduce the sentence to approximately 32 to 37 months. If the notional sentence of 6 to 7 years is reduced by 25% for mitigation, it arrives at a notional sentence of approximately 54 to 63 months. A further reduction of one-third for her guilty plea results in a sentence of approximately 36 to 42 months. We recognise that the issue for this court is not a strictly mathematical exercise, but these illustrative calculations do not support the conclusion that the aggregate sentence of 3 years imposed on Ms Novas was unduly lenient.[47]Turning to Mr Winkless, additional questions of totality arise and it is necessary to bring into account Count 6, possession of phones in prison, in respect of which the judge imposed a sentence of 12 months concurrent.[48]In our judgment, given the seriously aggravating features of his previous record and his grooming of Ms Novas, the least aggregate sentence that would have been appropriate for Mr Winkless after a trial would have been in the region of 7½ to 8 years. His mitigation could not reasonably justify a reduction of more than 15%. He was then entitled to a further reduction of 25% for his plea.[49]Adopting the same approach as we adopted with Ms Novas, a notional sentence of 7½ to 8 years reduced by 15% for mitigation would result in a notional sentence of 76 to 82 months. A further reduction of 25% for plea would result in an aggregate sentence of 57 to 62 months (or approximately 5 years). This supports the submission that the sentence passed on Mr Winkless is unduly lenient.[50]There remains the question of totality because he is already serving a lengthy sentence. However, there is no connection at all between the current offending and the offending for which he was already serving his long sentence.[51]Standing back, we consider that the least sentence that could properly have been imposed on Mr Winkless was one of 5 years. That is significantly longer than the sentence of 3 years and 4 months imposed by the judge. Taking all the matters to which we have referred into account, we consider that the sentence passed by the judge on Mr Winkless was unduly lenient and that the sentence should have been not less than 5 years.[52]As we have said, the court is not engaged in a strictly mathematical exercise. We have in addition stood back and looked at the broader picture, balancing the undoubted need to deter this type of offending and the respective situations of the individual offenders. In the result we are not satisfied that the overall sentence imposed on Ms Novas was unduly lenient. It was, in our judgment, within the range of sentences that the judge could properly impose. We therefore dismiss the Reference so far as it applies to her, while directing that the record be corrected so that her sentence is expressed as a period of detention in a young offender institution.[53]Mr Winkless' position is different. For the reasons we have explained, we quash the sentence on Count 2 in his case and substitute a sentence of 5 years concurrent. His total sentence will therefore be 5 years, but that will run consecutively to the sentence he was already serving.