Rebalancing Sentencing in Domestic Abuse Cases: Elevating the Totality Principle in Controlling and Coercive Behaviour

Introduction

The Judgment in Nesfield, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 233) presents a significant development in the sentencing of cases involving domestic abuse and controlling or coercive behaviour. In this case, the Offender, aged 28, pleaded guilty to crimes involving a prolonged pattern of domestic abuse against his partner, ‘AB’. The offences included controlling or coercive behaviour as well as assault occasioning actual bodily harm and unlawful wounding. The case arose from a referral under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by His Majesty’s Solicitor General on the ground that the sentence imposed by the Crown Court was unduly lenient. Central to the case was the application of the principle of totality in sentencing, particularly regarding the treatment of a range of connected offences within the context of a persistent domestic abuse campaign.

The Judgment outlines a sequence of events—from detailed facts describing a decade-long relationship marred by escalating violence, through the plea process, to the pre-sentence and liaison reports—and culminates in the Court of Appeal’s determination to augment the sentence for the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour. This commentary examines the practical and doctrinal implications of that decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The offender pleaded guilty to three charges in relation to a pattern of abuse: controlling or coercive behaviour (count 1), assault occasioning actual bodily harm (count 9), and unlawful wounding (count 10). In the Crown Court, the sentencing judge imposed a total sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment (with concurrent running of counts 9 and 10) after granting a 25% reduction for the plea. However, the Solicitor General challenged the sentence as unduly lenient given the extensive and aggravating nature of the offences.

In its assessment, the Appellate Court concluded that while the trial judge’s framework in applying guidelines was appropriate, the aggregation of the offending behaviour through the principle of totality was not adequately reflected. The Court determined that a notional sentence after trial should have been at the top of the recommended range for a category 1A offence—approximately 4 years’ custody. After applying the 25% reduction for plea, the substituted sentence should have been 3 years’ imprisonment rather than 27 months. The Court accordingly increased the sentence on count 1 and granted the Solicitor General’s application.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment referenced the Totality guideline and made indirect reference to the principles established in Attorney-General's Reference No 132 of 2001 (Johnson) [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 41, which underscores the necessity of correcting “gross” errors in sentencing. This case reinforced the judicial commitment to ensuring that aggregate sentencing accurately reflects the cumulative gravity of repeated offences, particularly in domestic abuse contexts. By using these precedents, the Court of Appeal clarified that even if individual offence guidelines suggest a certain sentencing range, the overall context—the repeated and sustained nature of the abuse—may warrant an uplift in the sentence to address the totality of the offender's criminality.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was focused on ensuring that the sentencing structure duly recognizes the overall criminality of the offender's actions. The sentencing judge had constructed a notional sentence by selecting a starting point of 3 years before giving plea credits, but the Solicitor General argued that this was significantly below what was warranted by the facts, especially when considering the multiple incidents of actual violence and their cumulative impact.

Key points in the court’s legal reasoning included:

The Principle of Totality: The court underscored that the combined effect of multiple offences, where the offences overlap as part of a coherent pattern of domestic abuse, necessitates a sentencing approach that is not simply the sum of its parts. Instead, an aggregated assessment should be made to capture the gravity of sustained abuse over several years.
Elevation of the Leading Offence: The controlling and coercive behaviour, treated as the lead offence, was recognized as encapsulating the overall series of violent acts. The decision to elevate the sentence on count 1 reflects a deliberate approach to ensure that the continuum of abuse is adequately penalized.
Guideline Application and Aggravating Features: Although the Sentencing Council’s guidelines provided a baseline recommendation (starting point of 2 years 6 months for category 1A offences), the court concluded that additional aggravating factors—such as the repeated nature of the abuse and its impact on children—necessitated an upward adjustment.
Plea Credit Considerations: There was consensus across the parties on the 25% reduction for guilty pleas, which the appellate court applied properly. The focus was then on the appropriateness of the initial notional sentence rather than the plea credit.

The court’s reasoning ultimately hinged on whether the aggregate sentence, viewed through the lens of totality, reflected justice and proportionality. By deeming the original sentence as unduly lenient, the court preserved the integrity of sentencing principles, ensuring that a mere arithmetic aggregation of individual offence sentences wouldn’t undermine the severity of repeated and escalating abuse.

Impact

The Judgment sets an important precedent for future domestic abuse cases. The decision makes clear that when multiple counts are interconnected through a course of abusive behaviour, the sentencing court must ensure that the combined sentence genuinely reflects both the longevity and intensity of the offending conduct. This approach is likely to influence lower courts by:

Encouraging a holistic consideration of domestic abuse cases where multiple offences are interrelated.
Prompting a more rigorous application of the principle of totality, ensuring that sentences neither understate nor dilute the seriousness of extended patterns of abuse.
Leading to more consistent sentencing practices in cases involving controlling and coercive behaviour, thereby amplifying judicial responses to domestic abuse.

In addition, the ruling emphasizes the importance of addressing the impact on victims and their families, particularly when children are involved, thereby reinforcing the need for judicial sensitivity in domestic abuse sentencing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts central to the Judgment merit clarification:

Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: This offence, codified under the Serious Crime Act 2015, covers patterns of behaviour that are designed to exert power and control over a partner. The court’s decision places significant weight on the cumulative effect of such behaviour over time.
Principle of Totality: This is the judicial doctrine that requires sentences for multiple offences to be considered in aggregate rather than in isolation. The goal is to avoid “double counting” aggravating factors and instead ensure the overall sentence reflects the full scope of the offender’s conduct.
Notional Sentence After Trial: This is an estimate of what the sentence would have been had the case gone to trial rather than pleading guilty. It serves as a benchmark to determine the adequacy of sentencing and to calculate plea credits.
Sentence Uplift: In this case, the notion of increasing the sentence on the lead offence to account for additional incidents is critical. Rather than simply adding concurrent sentences, the uplift ensures that the aggregate harm is incorporated into the main punishment.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Nesfield, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 233) reinforces a critical legal principle: the necessity for sentencing to reflect the totality of abuse, particularly in cases involving sustained domestic violence with multiple overlapping offences. By requiring an upward adjustment in the sentence—from an original 27 months to a substituted sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment—the Judgment mandates that the gravity and cumulative impact of controlling and coercive behaviour be met with a proportionate judicial response.

This precedent has wide-ranging implications for future cases, ensuring that sentences for domestic abuse are commensurate with the enduring harm inflicted upon victims and their families. It offers clarity on the application of sentencing guidelines and the principle of totality, thereby contributing to a more consistent and robust approach to addressing domestic violence in the legal system.

In essence, this case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to delivering justice that fully accounts for the complex dynamics of abuse, ensuring that the cumulative nature of such crimes is neither diluted nor under-penalized.