Reforming Sentencing Procedures in Domestic Abuse Cases: Insights from Drew v R ([2024] EWCA Crim 1537)

Introduction

Drew v R ([2024] EWCA Crim 1537) is a landmark judgment delivered by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on November 19, 2024. The case revolves around the sentencing of the respondent, Drew, who was convicted of multiple offences related to controlling and coercive behavior within an intimate relationship, as well as intentional strangulation. The Solicitor General sought the court's intervention under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that the sentences imposed by the Crown Court were unduly lenient.

Summary of the Judgment

The Crown Court at Truro sentenced Drew to a suspended sentence of 2 years' imprisonment for controlling or coercive behavior and a concurrent suspended sentence of 18 months for intentional strangulation. The Solicitor General challenged these sentences, asserting that they did not adequately reflect the severity and cumulative nature of the offences. The Court of Appeal agreed, quashing the original sentences and substituting them with immediate custodial sentences: 2½ years for controlling behavior and 18 months for strangulation, to be served concurrently.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that influenced the court's decision:

R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452; This case provided guidance on sentencing for intentional strangulation, recommending a starting point of 18 months' custody.
R v Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim 888; The court emphasized proper procedure in sentencing indications, underscoring that improper indications could lead to referrals under section 36.
Attorney-General's Reference (R v Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846; Established principles for assessing whether a sentence is unduly lenient, highlighting that only in exceptional cases should sentences be referred.
Attorney-General's Reference No 132 of 2001 (Bryn Dorian Johnson) [2002] EWCA Crim 1418; Clarified the distinction between leniency and undue leniency, aiming to preserve public confidence by addressing gross errors in sentencing.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal identified multiple procedural and substantive errors in the Crown Court's sentencing:

Procedural Errors: The judge failed to adhere to the established procedure for giving a sentencing indication as per R v Goodyear and the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020. Specifically, the judge provided unsolicited indications of a suspended sentence without the defendant requesting it, leading to a misapplication of procedural guidelines.
Inadequate Consideration of Aggravating Factors: The judge did not sufficiently account for the multiplicity and severity of the offences. While the starting point for the controlling behavior was correctly identified, the uplift for aggravating factors and the presence of multiple offences were inadequately addressed.
Improper Discount for Plea: The judge afforded a full one-third discount for guilty pleas, despite the pleas not being entered at the earliest possible stage, which typically warrants a 25% discount.
Totality Principle: The sentencing failed to reflect the cumulative gravity of the offences, particularly the overlap between controlling behavior and intentional strangulation, leading to an overall sentence that underestimated the harm inflicted.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving domestic abuse:

Stricter Adherence to Procedural Guidelines: Courts must meticulously follow established procedures for sentencing indications to avoid referrals under section 36.
Enhanced Sentencing for Domestic Abuse: Recognizes the compounded harm in domestic abuse cases, ensuring that sentences reflect the cumulative and severe nature of such offences.
Judicial Accountability: Reinforces the accountability of judges in appropriately applying sentencing guidelines and considering all factors that influence the severity of sentences.
Public Confidence: By addressing and correcting undue leniency, the judgment helps maintain public trust in the judicial system's ability to effectively handle and deter domestic abuse.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To aid understanding, the following legal terms and concepts from the judgment are clarified:

Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988: Allows the Solicitor General to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal if it is believed to be unduly lenient.
Suspended Sentence: A custodial sentence that is not immediately enforced, provided the offender complies with certain conditions over a specified period.
Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse: Sentencing guidelines that recognize the particular severity and impact of domestic abuse, emphasizing trust violations and potential ongoing threats.
Totality Principle: Ensures that the cumulative sentence for multiple offences reflects the overall culpability without imposing excessive punishment compared to the individual offences.
Pre-sentence Report: A document prepared by probation services providing an assessment of the offender and the impact of the crime, aiding the court in determining an appropriate sentence.

Conclusion

The Drew v R ([2024] EWCA Crim 1537) judgment underscores the paramount importance of adhering to procedural norms and appropriately scaling sentences to reflect the severity of domestic abuse offences. By rectifying the Crown Court's lenient sentencing, the Court of Appeal has reinforced the judiciary's commitment to addressing the multifaceted harms of domestic abuse. This case serves as a critical reminder to legal practitioners and courts alike to meticulously consider all factors in sentencing, particularly in complex cases involving multiple and severe offences. The decision not only ensures justice for the victim but also sets a robust precedent for future cases, promoting a more stringent and consistent approach to sentencing in the realm of domestic violence.