Bennett [2019] EWCA Crim 792
- Summary
- Citing
- Cited By
In R v Bennett [2019] EWCA Crim 792 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a sentence of 78 months’ imprisonment for misconduct in a public office.
Ms Claire Bennett pleaded guilty to misconduct in a public office, supplying a controlled drug of class B, possession with intent of a controlled drug of class B, and conveying a list A article into prison. She was sentenced to 78 months’ imprisonment for misconduct in a public office, with concurrent sentences of 32 months imposed on the other three offences.
Ms Bennett had no previous convictions. She commenced employment as a prison officer at Aylesbury Young Offender Institution in July 2016. Her misconduct comprised three aspects. First, she engaged in inappropriate and at times sexual contact with four different prisoners. She regularly messaged one prisoner, ML, with messages of sexual content and kissed him in his cell on at least one occasion. She kissed another prisoner, MM, and wrote letters to him when he was transferred described as quite personal and intimate; he responded with highly sexual texts. She wrote letters in similar terms to a third prisoner, CM, who responded in like fashion; one letter describing significant sexual contact was found in her bedroom. A letter from her to a fourth prisoner, TA, setting out significant sexual contact was found in his cell after her arrest.
The second aspect arose from and was connected to this inappropriate contact. She did favours for these prisoners. When ML’s co-accused were due to be moved to Aylesbury, she advised him which manager to approach and to whom not to speak in seeking to have them housed on the same wing, advice designed to circumvent security concerns. She forewarned inmates of when their cells might be searched, checking dates of searches of ML’s cell. In May 2017 when Aylesbury introduced a signal blocker for illicit mobile telephones, she told ML about it, explained how the system worked, when it would be in operation, and which parts of the institution would be covered.
The third limb related to bringing drugs into prison. On 1 June 2017 colleagues detected a smell of cannabis from a jacket in a staff restroom. Just over 58 grams of skunk cannabis wrapped in a condom were found in a pocket of the jacket, which belonged to the appellant. She immediately accepted that she had brought the drugs in intending to pass them to ML. She admitted she had done the same the previous day and given drugs to ML. Both packages came from a contact of ML whom she had met outside the prison. She informed police of another package at her home. When searched, 123 grams of synthetic cannabinoids were found in a sock in her bedroom. The overall value of all the drugs when sold within the prison was of the order of £10,000.
In interview she said she had brought the drugs into prison knowingly, that she was stupid not to have prevented the situation, and admitted inappropriate relationships with several prisoners. She admitted putting prisoners in danger of debt, retribution, intimidation and violence, and putting colleagues in danger. She said she felt under pressure from ML on the wing and was backed into a corner, that he had made comments that he knew personal things about her and she felt she should do what he told her. The pre-sentence report recounted that she considered she had been groomed. Character evidence from relatives and friends spoke highly of her and explained how her conduct was out of character. She had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression because of the events of 2017, had completed therapy, and was taking antidepressants.
The judge acknowledged that she was a probationary officer only eight months into the job, that she was struggling to cope, and that she was suffering from depression following a relationship breakdown. However, the judge noted that she was 44 years of age, had previously worked in the military, and had been a police officer between 2002 and 2006. The judge observed that at an early stage she recognised she was being groomed and had passed up many opportunities to tell somebody. In March 2017 she requested a transfer which was turned down; all she had to do was say she was the focus of unwanted attention. The judge accepted she had got swept up but did not accept she was powerless, noting she had good abilities, good life skills, a good support network at the prison, and had received training about conditioning, manipulation and corruption prevention awareness. The judge concluded the case required a severe sentence.
The grounds of appeal were that the starting point taken by the judge, somewhere in the order of nine and a half years, was too high by reference to other authorities, and that the sentence imposed gave insufficient weight to personal mitigation. The court noted that the judge gave full credit for the plea; while in strict terms the credit should have been 25 per cent rather than one third as the plea was not indicated at the magistrates’ court, the appellant made full and immediate admissions and the court on a pragmatic basis considered the sentence on the basis that a discount of one third was appropriate.
The judge had been referred to R v McDade and Reynolds [2010] EWCA Crim 249, R v Youngman [2016] EWCA Crim 2224, and R v Bozkurt [2017] EWCA Crim 1415. The judge referred in detail to Reynolds, which involved provision of telephones and class A and B drugs over a two-month period, noting that the court had said sentences up to ten years on conviction were appropriate for prison officers committing such offences for personal gain. It was argued that using Reynolds to justify a starting point in excess of nine years was inappropriate given that this case involved class B drugs rather than class A drugs, drugs taken in over a relatively short period, and no apparent financial gain.
The court acknowledged a valid distinction between the facts in Reynolds and this case relating to the types of drugs involved. However, the court stated it had to consider the overall criminality revealed by the appellant’s offending. The court reminded itself of what was said in Reynolds about the general position of prison officers committing this type of offence: that a corrupt prison officer is much better placed than an outsider to defeat prison security systems; that the effect is twofold, first undermining discipline and order and with it the safety and human rights of inmates, and secondly that honest prison officers will suffer by coming under suspicion themselves, being subject to closer scrutiny, and naturally resenting the rewards corrupt colleagues enjoy; and that for both reasons the deterrent function of sentencing plays a prominent part. The court stated that the judge had to reflect each of the aspects of misconduct committed by the appellant. While bringing drugs into prison and sexual misconduct with prisoners were features found in other cases, this case was unusual because of the information the appellant was prepared to give to prisoners in relation to security measures being taken at the prison, which fundamentally undermined the security of Aylesbury Young Offender Institution in a way not found in other authorities to which the court had been referred.
The court stated that 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 made to the court, the court was unpersuaded that the sentence was manifestly excessive. In short, the appeal was dismissed because the severity of the sentence reflected the need for deterrence and the multiple ways the appellant undermined prison security, particularly through providing information about security measures.