{"id":597209,"date":"2026-04-18T20:59:05","date_gmt":"2026-04-18T18:59:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\/"},"modified":"2026-04-18T20:59:05","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T18:59:05","slug":"r-v-joshua-robert-long","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Joshua Robert Long"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. The appellant, a\u00a0seaman serving in the Royal Navy, pleaded guilty to a\u00a0charge of being absent without leave. He was sentenced by a\u00a0court martial to 7 days' service detention suspended for 12 months. With the leave of the single judge he appeals against that sentence, on grounds relating solely to the length of the operational period of the suspended sentence. 2. The appellant enlisted in the Navy in 2016 when he was aged 16. Reports of his service show that he has many good qualities and clear potential, but unfortunately, he has on occasions let himself and his superiors down, often as a\u00a0result of excessive drinking. He had been disciplined on a\u00a0number of occasions. 3. In\u00a0January 2023 the appellant's ship was on operational service and was tied alongside in Bahrain. He was subject to certain restrictions of his privileges, imposed by his commanding officer because of past misconduct. He was allowed to go onshore but not to stay overnight in a\u00a0hotel. Nor was he permitted to drink alcohol either onboard or ashore. It appears that the appellant was aggrieved by those restrictions, and he wanted when he went ashore to meet a\u00a0woman with whom he had been in correspondence. He made a\u00a0deliberate decision to absent himself without leave, and did not return to his ship at 10 pm as he should have done. He returned in the morning, but his boarding was then delayed for 2 or 3\u00a0hours because he had forgotten his identification card. In the event, he was absent without leave from 10 pm on 27\u00a0January until 11.40 am on the following day. 4. The appellant apologised and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. 5. At the sentencing hearing on 30\u00a0January 2024 (about a\u00a0year after the offence was committed) it was agreed that in the circumstances of this case the maximum period of service detention which the court martial could impose was 28 days. 6. The court found a\u00a0number of aggravating features: \u2022 the appellant's ship was operationally deployed in a\u00a0particularly sensitive location; \u2022 his absence had been premeditated; \u2022 he had had previous warnings with regard to his general behaviour. The mitigating factors were that: \u2022 the period of absence was short; and \u2022 the appellant had returned voluntarily. The court martial concluded that a\u00a0short period of service detention was necessary. The appropriate period was 10 days, reduced to 7 days because of the early guilty plea. 7. The court martial then considered whether the sentence should be suspended. The court accepted that the appellant wanted to make something of his naval career but feared that if the sentence took immediate effect there was a\u00a0risk that "the same problems will occur". A\u00a0suspended sentence would have a\u00a0deterrent effect and would combine punishment with rehabilitation in the hope that the appellant would stay out of trouble in the future. 8. In those circumstances the court martial suspended the sentence, initially for an\u00a0operational period of 2\u00a0years, which was wrongly thought to be the maximum available period. 9. There followed two slip rule hearings. The court martial reduced the length of the operational period to 12 months, which was agreed to be the maximum period available in the circumstances of this case. The court did not, however, accept a\u00a0submission on behalf of the appellant that greater weight should have been given to the fact that he had been out of trouble for about 12 months before he was sentenced. In that regard the court said that, whilst that fact was acknowledged, "looking again at his history of offending, we take the view that the suspension for the 12-month period, the maximum allowable to us, is a\u00a0just and appropriate sentence". 10. Mr\u00a0Bolt, representing the appellant in this court as he did below, does not challenge either the imposition of a\u00a0custodial sentence or the length of it. He submits, however, that the operational period of the suspended sentence was too long, for two principal reasons: \u2022 first, because it was of disproportionate length in the context of the sentence of 7 days' service detention; and \u2022 secondly, because the court martial failed to give any or any sufficient weight to the fact that the appellant had already conducted himself well for 12 months prior to being sentenced. In support of those grounds Mr\u00a0Bolt argues that the court martial failed to have regard, as it was required by s.259 Armed Forces Act 2006 to do, to the Sentencing Council's Imposition Guideline, which states that "the time for which a\u00a0sentence is suspended should reflect the length of the sentence; up to 12 months might normally be appropriate for a\u00a0suspended sentence of up to 6 months". 11. Paragraph\u00a050 of the Manual Service Law states: "Determining the length of the operational period. The operational period must be a specified period of between 3 and 12 months. The determination of the operational period is a matter of discretion for the C[ommanding] O[fficer]. He should bear in mind the factors at paragraph 47a \u2013 g above. He should also consider what might be a reasonable length of time for the offender to prove that he will not re-offend, can perform his duties to the standard expected and can be rehabilitated through the imposition and impact of the punishment awarded and the supervision he will be subject to. " The factors listed in paragraph 47 include the likelihood of reform, genuine remorse, previous disciplinary record, personal circumstances, and the gravity and type of offence. 12. Mr\u00a0Bolt submits in this regard that there had been an\u00a0unusually long delay before sentencing, during which the appellant had avoided any further offending. Mr\u00a0Bolt argues that since the aim of this form of sentence is in part to improve service efficiency, the appellant had already to a significant extent demonstrated that. Mr\u00a0Bolt also explains to us that the conditions in which the appellant had been serving at the time of the offence and in which he continued to serve following the court martial were for various reasons particularly austere. For that reason, Mr\u00a0Bolt submits, the pressure upon this appellant of a\u00a0sentence being suspended for a\u00a0lengthy period was even greater than would normally be the case. 13. For the respondent, Commander Hannah places emphasis on the service context of this offence: a\u00a0matter which, he points out, is not specifically addressed in the Definitive Guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council. He reminds us, correctly, that the court martial is a\u00a0specialist tribunal and submits that it is best placed to take into account the service context. This offence, he submits, has to do with service discipline, which is all the more important when the service is being carried out in austere conditions because of the nature of a\u00a0deployment. Commander Hannah accepts that behaviour during the period between the offence and the sentencing is a\u00a0relevant consideration, but argues that the court martial was nonetheless justified in taking the course it did. 14. We are grateful to both advocates for their focused and very helpful submissions. 15. As to the first ground of appeal, as Mr\u00a0Bolt rightly acknowledges, the sentencing guideline does not lay down an\u00a0inflexible rule, and the need to maintain a\u00a0proportion between the length of the custodial term and the length of the operational period does not imply a necessarily arithmetical approach. Deterrence is a\u00a0legitimate consideration in sentencing, and the combination of a\u00a0short period of detention and a\u00a0much longer operational period of suspension, up to and including the maximum available, may be appropriate in the circumstances of a\u00a0particular case. In our view it cannot be said that it was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive for the court martial to adopt such an\u00a0approach here. 16. Mr\u00a0Bolt's second ground of appeal is, however, one which has caused us to reflect carefully. This court is slow to interfere with a\u00a0sentencing decision of the court martial. As was said in R\u00a0v Ashworth, [2019] EWCA Crim 1737: "… the court martial is a\u00a0specialist tribunal and particular respect must be given to its judgments as to the significance of the military context of an offence and as to the implications for the service, as well as for the individual offender, of imposing particular sentences." We keep that important principle very much in mind. However, an\u00a0important part of the reasons for imposing the suspended sentence in this case was to deter the appellant from further misconduct or indiscipline; but he had in fact already been deterred to the extent that, against the unpromising background of his previous record, he had kept out of trouble for a\u00a0year. Furthermore, it strikes us that the approach taken by the court martial would have the effect that the operational period of the suspended sentence would be exactly the same whether it chanced that by the time of sentencing the appellant could point to good conduct over a\u00a0period of a\u00a0week, a\u00a0year, or even longer. 17. Having reflected on these competing considerations, we accept Mr\u00a0Bolt's submission that greater weight should have been given to the unusually lengthy passage of time between the offence and the sentencing, and the appellant's conduct during that period. He had already demonstrated clear signs of reform and rehabilitation, and of a\u00a0determination to avoid further offending and to continue his service in difficult conditions. With all respect to the court martial, we are persuaded that allowance should have been made for that period of good progress by making a\u00a0reduction in the length of the operational period which would otherwise have been appropriate. 18. For those reasons we allow this appeal. We quash the sentence of 7 days' service detention suspended for 12 months and we substitute for it a\u00a0sentence of 7 days' service detention suspended for 8 months. Mr\u00a0Bolt, Commander Hannah, thank you very much for your assistance. 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 (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. The appellant, a seaman serving in the Royal Navy, pleaded guilty to a charge of being absent without leave. He was sentenced by a court martial to 7 days’ service detention suspended for 12 months. With the leave of the single judge he appeals against that sentence, on grounds relating solely to the length of the operational period of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8677],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7633,15958,7648,8348,7940],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-597209","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-8677","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-martial","kji_keyword-period","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_keyword-service","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Joshua Robert Long - 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\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Joshua Robert Long\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. The appellant, a seaman serving in the Royal Navy, pleaded guilty to a charge of being absent without leave. He was sentenced by a court martial to 7 days' service detention suspended for 12 months. With the leave of the single judge he appeals against that sentence, on grounds relating solely to the length of the operational period of...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\/\" \/>\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=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"8 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Joshua Robert Long - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-18T18:59:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"R v Joshua Robert Long\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"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\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R v Joshua Robert Long - 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\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Joshua Robert Long","og_description":"1. The appellant, a seaman serving in the Royal Navy, pleaded guilty to a charge of being absent without leave. He was sentenced by a court martial to 7 days' service detention suspended for 12 months. With the leave of the single judge he appeals against that sentence, on grounds relating solely to the length of the operational period of...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"8 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\/","name":"R v Joshua Robert Long - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-18T18:59:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-v-joshua-robert-long\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"R v Joshua Robert Long"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","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\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/597209","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=597209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=597209"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=597209"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=597209"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=597209"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=597209"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=597209"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=597209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}