Persistent Domestic Abuse and Disregard of Court Orders Can Justify a Dangerousness Finding and an Extended Determinate Sentence for ABH

R v Froom [2026] EWCA Crim 805 (CA (Crim Div)), 12 June 2026
Before: Warby LJ, O’Farrell J (giving the judgment), Hill J
Appeal from: Bristol Crown Court (HHJ Patrick)

1. Introduction

This appeal concerned whether an extended determinate sentence (EDS) was lawfully and proportionately imposed on an adult offender convicted of repeated domestic assaults, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) contrary to s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, together with assaults by beating and breaches of court orders.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to a series of assaults against two intimate partners (referred to here as Ms C for the earlier victim and Ms K for the later victim), and to breaching a restraining order protecting Ms K. The central issue on appeal was not the convictions, but whether the sentencing judge was entitled to:

• categorise the ABH offences at the higher end of the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines; and
• find “dangerousness” under the statutory test so as to justify an EDS under the Sentencing Act 2020.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that:

• the judge was entitled to place the ABH against Ms K in Category 1B (serious harm) because a displaced finger fracture required hospital attendance and substantially affected her ability to work;
• the judge was entitled to place the ABH against Ms C in Category 2A given the circumstances, including vulnerability and the nature of the attack;
• the breach of the restraining order was properly treated as serious and distressing in its domestic abuse context, notwithstanding the judge’s finding that Ms K was to some extent “complicit” in continued contact;
• mental health evidence (including ADHD) did not materially reduce culpability on these facts; and
• there was no error of principle in the finding that the appellant posed a significant risk of serious physical and psychological harm to women through further specified offences, warranting an extended sentence.

3. Sentencing Outcome (as upheld)

The sentencing structure (as described by the Court of Appeal) resulted in:

• activation in full of a 16-week suspended sentence;
• an extended determinate sentence of 5 years for ABH (custodial term 4 years + extended licence 1 year), imposed on two ABH counts concurrently (one relating to Ms C and one to Ms K);
• other sentences (including for assaults by beating and breach of restraining order) ordered to run concurrently.

The total was therefore 16 weeks followed by the 5-year EDS (4 years’ custody + 1 year extended licence).

4. Analysis

4.1 Precedents Cited

The appeal relied centrally on R v Lang & Ors [2005] EWCA Crim 2864, particularly the guidance that:

The Court of Appeal accepted the need for a fact-sensitive assessment, but distinguished the appellant’s case on the evidence: the history was not merely “repetitive low-level” violence; it showed persistent domestic abuse, escalatory features, and a sustained refusal to comply with court orders, supporting a significant risk of serious harm (including psychological harm).

4.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Guideline categorisation: harm, culpability, and domestic abuse context

The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s approach to the guideline categories for ABH:

• Ms K ABH (fractured finger): The court rejected the submission that a finger fracture should be treated as “in-between” harm. It accepted that the injury’s consequences mattered: the fracture required hospital attendance and had a substantial occupational impact (care work involving lifting/hoists), justifying Category 1 harm.
• Mental health and culpability reduction: The appellant relied on ADHD/mental disorder as a culpability-reducing factor. The court closely examined the expert reports and held they did not support a reduction:
  • the psychological evidence did not identify ADHD as a causal driver of the offending, pointing rather to emotional dysregulation, personality traits, and substance misuse;
  • the psychiatric evidence found no learning disability, autism, psychotic illness, or other conditions warranting hospital disposal; the appellant was fit to plead;
  • substance misuse and non-compliance dominated the risk picture.
• Ms C ABH: Vulnerability (serious health and mental health issues) was a legitimate culpability-aggravating feature. The court declined to reclassify culpability downward on the basis of mental disorder.

(b) Breach of restraining order: “complicity” does not neutralise harm/distress in domestic abuse

The appellant argued that because Ms K resumed the relationship, the breach should be treated as low culpability/harm. The Court of Appeal rejected that framing. It emphasised the domestic abuse context—including fear, reluctance to answer the door to police, the appellant’s refusal to leave, and continued abuse—supporting findings of:

• serious/persistent breach (culpability); and
• very serious distress (harm), notwithstanding periods of contact.

The court also noted that Ms K ultimately indicated she wanted the restraining order to continue—reinforcing that resumed contact is not the same as absence of distress or harm.

(c) Dangerousness and the statutory test for an extended sentence

The legal route to an EDS was via Sentencing Act 2020, s.280 (as summarised in the judgment). Key accepted preconditions included:

• ABH is a specified offence (see Sentencing Act 2020, s.306(1) and Schedule 18);
• the appellant was aged 21+ at conviction;
• life sentence not required.

The real dispute was whether there was a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by further specified offences.

The Court of Appeal held the judge was entitled to find dangerousness, pointing to:

• a sustained pattern of violence against intimate partners over years;
• repeated offending while subject to a community order, a suspended sentence, and a restraining order;
• evidence of superficial or non-meaningful engagement with supervision;
• the absence of “convincing indications” of capacity and willingness to change; and
• risk of psychological harm as well as physical harm in domestic abuse settings.

In short, the court treated persistent domestic abuse plus repeated contempt for protective orders as highly probative of future risk and the insufficiency of ordinary determinate sentencing measures.

4.3 Impact

Although this decision applies established principles rather than creating a wholly new doctrinal test, it meaningfully illustrates several points likely to influence future sentencing appeals:

• Domestic abuse “context” matters: The court endorsed a contextual approach where coercion, fear, and the dynamics of abusive relationships inform assessment of harm/distress and seriousness—particularly for restraining order breaches.
• Functional impact of injury can elevate harm: Even where the anatomical injury may appear limited (e.g., a finger fracture), substantial real-world effects (work capability, daily functioning) can support higher harm categorisation.
• ADHD evidence must link to culpability: The judgment demonstrates that neurodevelopmental or mental health diagnoses will not automatically reduce culpability; courts will look for a cogent causal connection to the offending and will weigh substance misuse and behavioural choices heavily where supported by evidence.
• Dangerousness can be founded on pattern + non-compliance: The decision shows that even where prior injuries have not “yet” crossed an extreme threshold, a persistent pattern of domestic violence combined with repeated breaches of court orders can justify a finding of significant risk of serious (including psychological) harm and the imposition of an EDS.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Extended determinate sentence (EDS): A sentence with (i) a custodial term and (ii) an extended licence period after release. It is available where statutory conditions are met, including a finding of dangerousness.
• “Specified offence”: An offence listed by statute as one that can trigger the dangerousness regime (including ABH). This does not mean an EDS is automatic; it simply opens the door to the statutory test.
• Dangerousness / significant risk of serious harm: A predictive assessment—based on evidence—of whether the offender poses a significant risk that future specified offences would cause serious harm. It involves both the nature of past offending and indicators of future behaviour (including compliance with orders and willingness to change).
• Sentencing guideline categories (e.g., “1B”, “2A”): Labels combining culpability (A high, B medium, C lower) and harm (1 most serious). The category affects the guideline starting point and range.
• Totality: The principle that when sentencing for multiple offences, the overall sentence must be just and proportionate to the total offending, not a mechanical addition of individual sentences.

6. Conclusion

[2026] EWCA Crim 805 is a clear appellate endorsement of robust sentencing in persistent domestic abuse cases where the offender repeatedly breaches protective and rehabilitative court orders. The Court of Appeal upheld:

• higher guideline categorisation where injury has substantial functional consequences;
• the careful use of expert mental health evidence, rejecting culpability reductions unsupported by causation;
• a contextual approach to restraining order breaches that recognises fear and coercion despite resumed contact; and
• a dangerousness finding (and EDS) grounded in an entrenched pattern of violence plus persistent non-compliance.

The decision underlines that, in domestic abuse sentencing, the combination of patterned violence and disregard for court orders can be decisive in moving a case into the dangerousness regime even where individual incidents might otherwise appear within a lower-to-mid level of violence.