“The Roach Ceiling” – Clarifying the Limits on Upward Departure from Sentencing Council Guideline Ranges

1. Introduction

In Roach, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 786) the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) was asked to review a 27-month custodial sentence imposed for a breach of a restraining order. The appellant, Daniel Roach, challenged the sentence primarily on the basis that the trial judge (i) over-emphasised his previous convictions, (ii) double-counted aggravating features, and (iii) unjustifiably departed from the maximum two-year range prescribed by the Sentencing Council’s guideline for a Category A2 breach.

The Court of Appeal, constituted by Lord Justice Lewis, de Montfort Smith J and HHJ Everett, reduced the sentence to 15 months’ imprisonment. In doing so, it set out a clearer framework for when, and how, a sentencing court may exceed the upper limit of a guideline range—especially in repeat breaches of restraining orders. The decision effectively articulates a new practical rule: prior offending and seriousness may justify movement within the range, but they rarely justify stepping beyond it absent “further, truly exceptional” factors, and explicit reasons must be given.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The breach was correctly classified as Category A2 (high culpability, lesser harm).
Seven earlier breaches were a separate, serious aggravating factor justifying movement up the range, but not a shift beyond the two-year maximum.
The trial judge’s starting point of three years (before plea discount) was therefore “manifestly excessive”.
The proper starting point was approximately 20 months, yielding a 15-month custodial sentence after 25% credit for the guilty plea.
A suspended sentence was ruled out owing to high risk, poor compliance history, and the need for immediate protection of the parents.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Authorities Cited

Although the judgment is relatively short on explicit case citations, it implicitly draws upon and reinforces several strands of appellate authority:

Statutory Mandate to Follow Guidelines – section 125 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 requires courts to “follow” (not merely “have regard to”) Sentencing Council guidelines unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice. The Court’s insistence on remaining within the A2 range unless strictly justified is a direct application of this statutory duty.
R v Caley & others [2012] EWCA Crim 2821 – emphasised that deviation from guidelines must be fully reasoned. Lord Justice Lewis echoes this, criticising the Crown Court’s absence of explanation for exceeding the range.
R v Clarke [2013] EWCA Crim 1228 – highlighted the prohibition on “double counting” aggravating factors. Roach reiterates that prior convictions may affect either category placement or uplift, but not both.
Sentencing Council Guideline – Breach of a Restraining Order (effective 2022) – provides the A1–C3 matrix adopted by the Court.
Guideline – Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences – governs the decision whether to suspend. The Court’s analysis of risk and compliance reflects this guideline.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Categorisation of Culpability/Harm:
- Culpability A – Persistence (four hours), threats, and deliberate flouting of a protective order raised the offence to the highest culpability bracket.
- Harm 2 – Psychological trauma to a vulnerable victim but no physical injury placed harm in Category 2.
Guideline Starting Point: A2 default = 12 months.
Upward Adjustment for Aggravation: Prior breaches justified moving “to somewhere in the region of 20 months,” remaining inside the 24-month ceiling.
Plea Discount: 25% reduction in recognition of a relatively early Crown Court guilty plea.
Prohibition on Double Counting: The Court rejects defence arguments that double counting occurred, clarifying that prior convictions did not influence culpability categorisation (already A) but only the uplift.
Exceeding the Range: The Court articulates that stepping beyond the top of a guideline range requires identification of additional factors “outside the norm” of cases the guideline already anticipates (e.g., extreme harm, statutory maximum nearing expiry). None existed here.
Suspension Analysis: Applying the community/custody guideline, the Court found:
- Custody threshold plainly passed.
- Negative indicators for suspension: prior non-compliance, high risk, ongoing threat.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

(a) Sentencing of Repeat Restraining-Order Breaches

Trial judges must justify, with concrete reasoning, any sentence exceeding 24 months for an A2 breach—even where the offender has an extensive history of similar violations.
Expect more frequent appellate interventions where courts leap above the guideline cap without explicit “exceptional” circumstances.

(b) Double-Counting Clarification

Practitioners will rely on Roach to argue that previous convictions can play only one role: (i) determining the category or (ii) aggravating within the category—not both.

(c) Risk, Mental Health, and Restraining Orders

Mental-health-related motivations carry limited mitigation where the offender had alternative support routes open. The priority remains the protection of victims named in the order.

(d) Guideline Compliance Culture

Roach reinforces the growing appellate intolerance for unexplained guideline departures, buttressing the rule-of-law principle of sentencing consistency.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Restraining Order: A court order, usually under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, prohibiting specified contact or behaviour towards named individuals.
Sentencing Council Guidelines: Statutory guidance that sets out sentencing ranges and starting points for specific offences, ensuring national consistency. Courts must generally follow these under s.125 Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Category A2: In breach cases, “A” denotes highest culpability; “2” denotes lesser of two harm categories. The range for A2 is 6–24 months, with a 12-month starting point.
Upward Adjustment: The process of moving from the starting point towards the top (or occasionally beyond) of the guideline range due to aggravating factors.
Double Counting: Using the same fact twice to increase sentence severity (e.g., using prior convictions both to hike the category and then again as an aggravator). Prohibited for fairness.
Suspended Sentence: A custodial sentence that does not take immediate effect; the offender remains in the community subject to conditions. Failure triggers activation.
Plea Discount: Reduction of sentence (usually 25% at first reasonable opportunity in the Crown Court) to reflect savings in court time and victim stress when a defendant pleads guilty.

5. Conclusion

Roach delivers a clear message: the ceiling of a guideline range is just that—a ceiling that can be pierced only when cogent, exceptional reasons are stated on the record. Prior convictions and the seriousness of the immediate breach justify movements within the range but do not, without more, warrant a leap beyond it. The Court’s meticulous parsing of culpability, harm, aggravation, and plea discount offers a model sentencing roadmap for lower courts, while its firm stance on suspension underscores the primacy of victim protection in domestic harassment contexts.

Going forward, practitioners can invoke the “Roach Ceiling” to challenge excessive sentences, and judges are placed on notice that compliance with Sentencing Council guidance is not a box-ticking exercise but a binding obligation rooted in statute and reinforced by appellate scrutiny.