Cheetham Sentencing Principles: Court of Appeal Clarifies Up-rating within Harassment Guideline Category B2 and the Limits of Totality Discounts

1. Introduction

Cheetham, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 804) is a Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision delivered on 10 June 2025 that addresses two perennial sentencing questions:

1. How far, within the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 guideline, a judge may increase the starting point inside category B2 where aggravating features exist; and
2. When, if at all, the principle of totality mandates a further reduction where consecutive sentences are passed for offences arising out of the same dynamic incident.

The appellant, Mr Cheetham, challenged a 36-month aggregate custodial term imposed for:

• Section 20 unlawful wounding (26 months);
• Putting a person in fear of violence by harassment, contrary to s.4(1) 1997 Act (10 months consecutive); and
• Possession of a bladed article (8 months concurrent).

He contended that (a) the harassment count was mis-categorised and given too high a starting point and (b) the judge failed to apply totality. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, articulating fresh guidance on both points.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Lord Justice Holroyde, Mrs Justice Thornton and HHJ Everett QC) held:

1. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the harassment offence within category B2 (persistent conduct causing significant distress) and to uplift the guideline B2 starting point of 36 weeks to 12 months owing to substantial aggravation.
2. Consecutive sentencing for harassment and section 20 wounding was permissible notwithstanding that the final act of harassment and the stabbing occurred during the same confrontation.
3. The principle of totality did not require any further reduction because the two counts protected different legal interests and the overall sentence was not “manifestly excessive”.
4. Consequently, the 36-month total was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Authority Cited

Although the handed-down reasons cite few authorities by name, the court’s reasoning is anchored in several well-known sources. The following appear either expressly or by necessary implication:

Sentencing Council Guidelines

(a) Assault Definitive Guideline (s.20) – category A3 starting point 2 years.
(b) Harassment & Stalking Guideline (s.4 PHA 1997) – categories B2/C2 at issue.
(c) Bladed Article Guideline – category A2 for possession where weapon produced during incident.

R v Barlow [2021] EWCA Crim 2031

Authorises adjusting the guideline starting point upwards where multiple aggravating factors are present within the same category.

R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592

Re-states that sentencing guidelines are not tram-lines; judges may depart where justified but must explain why. Cheetham applies this flexibility within the guideline band.

Principle of Totality – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 4 of 1989) [1990] 1 WLR 41

Framework for deciding whether consecutive sentences are justified and whether aggregate must be reduced to reflect overall criminality.

R v Parnham [2023] EWCA Crim 1572

Held that offences committed on the same occasion may nevertheless receive consecutive terms when they protect distinct interests (e.g., violence vs weapon possession). Cheetham extends that logic to harassment overlapping with assault.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

(a) Categorisation and Up-rating within Category B2

The principal contest concerned whether the harassment constituted category B2 or category C2. Category B requires either “greater persistence” or “intention to maximise fear/distress”; category C covers lesser cases with limited persistence and intent. The court affirmed the judge’s finding that:

• Conduct spanned eleven days (3-14 July 2024) and escalated drastically;
• Threats of using a gun and production of a knife showed a calculated attempt to terrify;
• Impact statements recorded significant – not merely moderate – distress (screaming, insomnia, displacement from home).

Thus, B2 was “not merely justified but clearly right”.

The court then addressed the numerical jump from the B2 starting point (36 weeks ≈ 9 months) to 12 months. Relying on Barlow and the guideline’s built-in flexibility, it approved the uplift because:

The aggravating features outweighed the limited personal mitigation and short persistence. They included domestic context, intoxication, threatened use of firearms, and the presence of a young adult witness.

Cheetham therefore cements the proposition that, inside guideline bands, judges may up-rate the starting point significantly where aggravation is stark, without needing to re-categorise the offence into B1/B0.

(b) Concurrency vs Consecutive Sentences

The decision also explores how offences inter-relate. Section 20 wounding (the stabbing of Mr Allen) and harassment (putting Ms Reeves in fear) arose in the same culmination incident. Nevertheless, the court endorsed consecutive treatment citing:

1. Separate victims – Allen vs Reeves;
2. Distinct legal interests – bodily integrity vs psychological security;
3. Section 20 was toward Mr Allen, whereas the harassment course had begun days earlier toward Ms Reeves;
4. The knife episode was a “new and grave escalation” rather than simply the last sample of harassment.

Hence, offences that overlap temporally can still attract cumulative punishment when they are legally and factually discrete.

(c) The Principle of Totality

The totality principle (Criminal Practice Direction VII C; AG Ref No 4/1989) requires a judge to “step back” and check that the aggregate sentence is just. The court accepted that some judges might have “shaded” (i.e., slightly reduced) the total to reflect overlap, but declined to find error in the judge’s failure to do so, reasoning:

• The 36-month total sat inside the combined guideline ranges;
• The appellant’s violence, threats with a gun, knife entry and domestic setting warranted stern deterrence;
• The total was neither “outside the bracket” nor “manifestly excessive”.

In so holding, the Court implicitly sets a ceiling for appellate interference: only a sentence that is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive will be quashed; mere room for marginal leniency is insufficient.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

Cheetham’s ramifications are likely to be felt in three areas:

1. Harassment & Domestic Abuse – Judges now have authority to lift a B2 starting point to (or even above) the top of the category range when multiple high-level aggravators are present, even if the campaign is short-lived.
2. Totality Assessments – The case underscores that proximity in time is not conclusive; where different harms or victims are involved, consecutive sentences may stand without an obligatory discount.
3. Appellate Deference – The Court reiterates its reluctance to fine-tune sentences that fall within guideline ranges absent material error, reinforcing trial judges’ discretion.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Guideline “Category”

Each sentencing guideline classifies offences by culpability (A–D) and harm (1–3). The intersection yields a “category box” with a starting point and range.

Starting Point vs Sentence Passed

The starting point is the arithmetic baseline before considering aggravation, mitigation and plea discount. The final sentence may be higher or lower.

Up-rating Within a Category

Even without changing categories, judges may move towards (or beyond) the top of the category range where aggravating factors predominate.

Consecutive vs Concurrent Sentences

Concurrent – Sentences run together when offences form part of the same incident and protect same interests.
Consecutive – Sentences add up where offences are distinct in nature, involve different victims, or represent separate criminality.

Totality Principle

A rule that the totality of consecutive sentences must be “just and proportionate”; judges must take a final panoramic view.

Manifestly Excessive

The appellate threshold: a sentence so high that no reasonable judge could have passed it. Minor disagreement is not enough.

5. Conclusion

Cheetham is a compact yet influential decision. By endorsing a 33 % uplift within harassment category B2 and refusing to trim the aggregate sentence under totality, the Court of Appeal supplies two clear messages:

1. Domestic harassment that escalates to weapons and terror may justify a markedly higher sentence even across a short timeframe.
2. Overlap in time does not necessarily compel concurrency or further totality reductions when discrete offences and victims are involved.

Practitioners should note that the Court will respect guideline-compliant sentences that are carefully reasoned, and appellants face a high bar in showing manifest excess. Prosecutors may cite Cheetham when urging robust sentences for domestically-situated harassment, and judges now have explicit appellate endorsement for flexibly applying the guidelines to reflect real-world aggravation.