Walton and Gascoyne v R: Court of Appeal upholds immediate custody for prison officers

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has dismissed appeals against immediate custodial sentences imposed on two former prison officers who formed romantic relationships with brothers held at HMP Buckley Hall. The court stressed that deterrence remains central to sentencing in such cases.

In Elle Walton & Anor v R [2026] EWCA Crim 1430, Lord Justice Holgate, Mr Justice Griffiths and His Honour Judge Kearl KC, Recorder of Leeds, rejected arguments that the sentences were manifestly excessive or should have been suspended. Mr Justice Griffiths gave the judgement of the court.

The offending

Jai Gascoyne and Elle Walton pleaded guilty at Manchester Crown Court to misconduct in public office. Between January and April 2024, each pursued a relationship with one of two brothers serving lengthy sentences for conspiracy to supply class A drugs. The relationships were accepted as non-sexual but were, in the court's words, developed romantic relationships.

The officers used their personal phones to contact illicit mobile phones held by the brothers, and all four were in regular contact with one another. Several hundred communications were detected. The two officers referred to each other as "Mrs N", wore matching engraved jewellery and received payments from people connected to the brothers. Gascoyne faced a further count after agreeing to "a goodbye cuddle" with another prisoner in the hours before her arrest.

Both resigned before the misconduct came to light and continued contact afterwards.

Sentence below

Mr Recorder Lawrence took 26 months as the figure after trial for Gascoyne, reduced to 24 months for mitigation, including her age, and to 16 months after full credit for plea. For Walton, 22 months was reduced to 20 months for mitigation, including significant caring responsibilities, and to 13 months after credit. He declined to suspend either sentence, citing the need for deterrence and the damage such conduct does to public confidence in the prison system.

The appeal

Counsel for both appellants argued that the starting points were too high, relying on Hibbs [2022] EWCA Crim 1927 and Ratcliffe [2009] EWCA Crim 1468, and that personal mitigation, good character and delay had been given too little weight.

The court said that every case of this kind is fact-specific. No existing authority supplies a starting point or range, and the court expressly declined to offer the kind of general guidance that would properly come from the Sentencing Council. Hibbs, which concerned a prison nurse with brief telephone contact, was described as far removed from the present facts. Winkless and Novas [2026] EWCA Crim 904 was considered too different to assist.

The court identified twelve features showing high culpability and harm, including recent targeted training, the absence of grooming or coercion, the encouragement of illicit phone use and failure to report it, receipt of money, and a refusal to desist after discovery. The court described the coordinated conduct of all four participants as very unusual and serious.

On character, the court observed that previous good character is a common feature of cases involving prison officers. The starting point will ordinarily assume it. The delay argument failed because a four-defendant investigation involving unrecovered phones had not been unreasonably long, and no detrimental effect was shown.

Where no guideline exists, the court said, the focus on appeal will be the end point before credit for plea rather than precise calibration of each step. Applying Price [2023] EWCA Crim 1060, the judge was entitled to impose immediate custody even if seriousness was the only factor against suspension. The court added that such cases are most unlikely to result in anything other than immediate custody.

Both appeals were dismissed.