Introduction

The case of Savastano, R. v ([2023] EWCA Crim 965) before the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) addresses pivotal issues surrounding sentencing in assault cases, particularly those involving police officers. The appellant, Savastano, a 42-year-old woman, was originally charged with unlawful wounding but entered a guilty plea to the alternative offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The core contention on appeal was whether her subsequent five-month imprisonment term should have been suspended.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant, Savastano, was sentenced to five months' imprisonment for assaulting a police officer. Her appeal challenged the immediate custodial sentence, arguing for suspension based on factors such as being the primary caregiver for three young children, a lack of prior violent convictions, a lengthy delay before sentencing, and her eventual guilty plea. The Court of Appeal, however, upheld the original sentence, affirming that the severity of the offence, her continued hostility towards law enforcement, and the lack of sufficient mitigating factors justified immediate custody rather than suspension.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references significant precedents that shape sentencing, particularly concerning custodial sentences for carers:

• R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214; emphasizes the consideration of caregiving responsibilities in sentencing decisions, advocating for suspension where carers face imminent harm or disruption to the welfare of dependents.
• R v Rescorl [2021] EWCA Crim 2005; reinforces the principle that failure to arrange proper care for children should not unduly penalize carers, thus supporting the consideration of personal circumstances in sentencing.

These cases underscore the judiciary's responsibility to balance the defendant's personal circumstances against the nature of the offence, particularly when family welfare is at stake.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously weighed the factors for and against suspending the sentence in accordance with the Sentencing Council Guidelines. Key considerations included:

• Aggravating Factors: The assault involved a police officer performing his duty, an offence exacerbated by the appellant's hostile demeanor and lack of remorse. Additionally, the presence of a child during the incident heightened the offence's gravity.
• Mitigating Factors: Delays in sentencing due to the appellant’s pregnancy and subsequent lack of reoffending over nearly three years were acknowledged. Her role as the primary caregiver for three young children was also a pertinent consideration.

Despite recognizing mitigating factors, the court concluded that the aggravated nature of the assault and the appellant’s entrenched hostility towards law enforcement outweighed these considerations, justifying the immediate custodial sentence.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s stance on prioritizing the seriousness of offences, especially those involving law enforcement, over mitigating personal circumstances. It sets a clear precedent that while factors such as caregiving responsibilities and personal circumstances are crucial, they may not suffice to suspend sentences in cases deemed sufficiently severe. This decision may influence future cases by affirming the court's authority to prioritize public safety and the integrity of law enforcement over individual mitigating factors.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 47 Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm: Under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, this offence involves assault that results in actual physical harm to another person. It is less severe than unlawful wounding (Section 20) but still constitutes a criminal assault.

Suspended Sentence: This is a judicial discretion where a court may delay serving a sentence, effectively releasing the offender on the condition that they do not commit further offences during the suspension period. If conditions are breached, the original sentence may be imposed.

Custody Threshold: Under sentencing guidelines, certain offences automatically trigger custodial sentences unless substantial mitigating factors are present. Crossing the custody threshold implies that imprisonment is one of the primary sentencing options.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Savastano v. EWCA Crim underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the authority and safety of law enforcement officers by upholding immediate custodial sentences in aggravated assault cases. While acknowledging the appellant’s personal circumstances, the court determined that the severity of the offence and the defendant's lack of remorse necessitated an immediate custodial response. This judgment highlights the delicate balance courts must maintain between individual mitigating factors and the overarching need to uphold public safety and justice.