{"id":933495,"date":"2026-05-21T02:12:10","date_gmt":"2026-05-21T00:12:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lilea-sallis\/"},"modified":"2026-05-21T02:12:10","modified_gmt":"2026-05-21T00:12:10","slug":"r-v-lilea-sallis","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lilea-sallis\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Lilea Sallis"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 All rights are reserved. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT SOUTHWARK HHJ HEHIR CP No: 45SH1864723 CASE NO 202600422\/A1 [2026] EWCA Crim 600 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Thursday, 30 April 2026 Before: LORD JUSTICE HOLGATE MR JUSTICE SOOLE THE RECORER OF LUTON HIS HONOUR JUDGE MICHAEL SIMON (Sitting as a Judge of the CACD) REX V LILEA SALLIS __________ Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE\u00a0 Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) _________ MS B CHERRILL appeared on behalf of the Appellant _________ J U D G M E N T 1. MR JUSTICE SOOLE: On 20 January 2026 in the Crown Court at Southwark, the appellant (then aged 27), following her conviction by a jury, was sentenced to a term of 30 months imprisonment for the offence of conspiracy to convey a List A article into prison, contrary to s.1(1)(a) Criminal Law Act 1977. With the leave of the single judge, the appellant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive. 2. In addition to the appellant, the parties to the conspiracy included a serving prison officer at HMP Coldingley, Isabelle Dale, and a serving prisoner at that establishment, Shahid Sharif. At the material time, Dale and Sharif had an intimate relationship. That relationship led to Dale agreeing with Sharif to smuggle the illegal drug Spice into the prison. The Spice was to be supplied by the appellant who was an associate of Sharif. The plan was for her to do so by soaking it onto envelopes to be posted or otherwise delivered to the prison. The evidence of the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy was in particular provided from transcripts of phone calls between 4 and 6 September 2022. No drugs in fact entered the prison as a result of the agreement involving the appellant. The judge concluded that this was for two reasons: first, because a postal strike prevented the appellant from posting any envelopes; secondly, because the alternative arrangements for Dale to collect the envelopes from the appellant did not proceed because the appellant lost interest and became difficult to contact from 6 September onwards. The judge concluded that this was not because of a fit of conscience but because the appellant felt that Sharif had driven her too far down on price. Thus, the appellant's involvement was for about two days. There is no evidence that infused envelopes were ever created. 3. Sharif pleaded guilty to the offence of conspiracy: count 3. Dale and the appellant were found guilty on that count. Dale was also found guilty on two counts of misconduct in public office: counts 1 and 2. 4. In his sentencing remarks the judge stated that all these offences relating to prisons required deterrent sentences and immediate custodial terms. There was no definitive sentencing guideline in respect of count 3, but authority showed that the court should proceed by measured reference to the definitive guideline for the supply of Class B drugs, which included Spice. By reference to that guideline, the offending of each defendant fell into the category of significant role culpability and category 3 harm. That gave a starting point of 12 months' custody and a range of six months to three years; but the judge again stressed the need for deterrence in relation to prison offences. 5. Before considering the individual case of each defendant, the judge stated that the offending would lie at or near the top end of the category range, even allowing for the fact that the maximum sentence for Prison Act offences was less than that for Class B drugs and even though no drugs were actually smuggled into the prison. Further, he took account of the overarching guidelines on totality and on sentencing offenders with mental disorders. 6. In the case of the appellant, the judge noted her previous convictions for battery (2011), theft (2013-2021) and various motoring offences (2021-2022) and that the index offence had been committed whilst she had been subject to a community order for the latter. However, he did not treat this record as an aggravating factor. He then took into account the pre-sentence report ("PSR") and the psychiatric report of Dr Ley. The judge bore in mind the brevity of the period of conspiracy, whilst again noting the reason for her withdrawal. He made clear that he could not be sure that the appellant had been aware that Dale was a prison officer and so did not sentence on that basis. The judge concluded that the least sentence which he could impose was 30 months' imprisonment. 7. In respect of Sharif, the judge held that the sentence on Count 3 after a trial would have been three years' imprisonment. With 25% credit for plea, his sentence was 27 months. In respect of Dale, the sentence was three years' imprisonment. Together with her sentences on the two counts of misconduct in public office, Dale's total sentence was three years six months' imprisonment. 8. On behalf of the appellant, Ms Beverley Cherrill, in most impressive submissions to which we pay particular tribute, rightly accepts that the category in the analogous sentencing guideline for the supply of class B drugs was correctly identified. 9. She advances two grounds of appeal. First, that the judge was wrong to impose a sentence near the top of the category range, in circumstances where the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy was short-lived and where no drugs were conveyed into the prison. By contrast, Ms Cherrill points to the evidence from a message between Dale and the appellant which indicates that, after the appellant's withdrawal, Sharif had found another source of supply. Further, she observes that there was no suggestion that after her withdrawal she had sought to put in a fresh financial bid for involvement. She also contrasts the sentences imposed on those two co-accused who were concerned in a conspiracy of a longer period. 10. Secondly, Ms Cherrill submits that the judge failed to give sufficient weight to the very significant personal mitigation. The judge should have concluded that the appropriate sentence did not exceed two years; and then, again bearing in mind in particular the personal mitigation and also the effect of prison on women, the term should be suspended. 11. As to personal mitigation, the report of Dr Ley described the appellant as a vulnerable woman who had experienced a lot of trauma in her life. She was largely homeless from age 13, sofa-surfing with friends and then living in a youth support hostel from the age of 15. This was confirmed by the report of her GP and its reference to a child protection plan in 2010. She reported serious physical and sexual assaults as a young adult. Dr Ley continued that mental health had been stabilised with medication but she would benefit from counselling or psychological therapy. The court had been provided with five character references, all of which attested to the effort she had made to recover from the effects of her traumatic upbringing. The PSR considered that she could be managed in the community and that a period of immediate imprisonment could have a de-stabilising effect. Its author noted that she had been abstinent from illegal drugs for two years. The statistical assessment tools showed a medium risk of reconviction and a low risk of recidivism over the next two years. She had successfully completed her Community Order imposed in 2022. Discussion and conclusion 12. The judge rightly observed that offences which involved the taking of drugs into a prison require deterrent sentences. He identified the appropriate category within the analogous sentencing guideline. For a conspiracy of this type, it was necessary to make a substantial upward adjustment from the category starting point of 12 months. The judge took account of the brevity of the appellant's involvement and that she took no active steps before her withdrawal. However, these factors were countered by the Judge's findings as to the reasons both for her withdrawal and for the absence of practical participation. The judge took into account her personal mitigation. As trial Judge he was in the best position to make the overall assessment. 13. In reviewing the sentence, we have given particular consideration to the appellant's personal mitigation and to the sentences imposed on the two co-accused. In our judgment, the personal mitigation is of strictly limited weight in the context of this offence. As to the comparative sentences for this offence, the appellant's intended role was nonetheless crucial to the plan. We see no unfair disparity with the sentences imposed on Dale and Sharif. 14. In all the circumstances we are not persuaded that the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive. If we had concluded that the sentence should be reduced to a term which would permit consideration of a suspended sentence, we would not have thought it right to do so. With all the weight of the personal mitigation and any other competing factors, the gravity of this offence compelled an immediate custodial sentence. 15. We conclude by noting the commendable good progress which the prison report of 27 April 2026 shows the appellant to be making and we express the hope that this will continue. 16. In all the circumstances, the appeal 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<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence v2.0 (The National Archives). Republication avec attribution. Computational analysis necessite accord complementaire.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7633,7621,8060,8348,98862],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-933495","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-prison","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_keyword-sharif","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Lilea Sallis - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lilea-sallis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Lilea Sallis\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"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...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lilea-sallis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-lilea-sallis\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-lilea-sallis\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Lilea Sallis - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-21T00:12:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-lilea-sallis\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-lilea-sallis\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-lilea-sallis\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"R v Lilea Sallis\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R v Lilea Sallis - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lilea-sallis\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Lilea Sallis","og_description":"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...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lilea-sallis\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lilea-sallis\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lilea-sallis\/","name":"R v Lilea Sallis - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-21T00:12:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lilea-sallis\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lilea-sallis\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/r-v-lilea-sallis\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"R v Lilea Sallis"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/933495","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=933495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=933495"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=933495"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=933495"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=933495"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=933495"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=933495"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=933495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}