Shingleton v R: Military Courts’ Discretion to Impose Immediate Imprisonment for Disciplinary Offences and the Standard of Manifest Excessiveness

Introduction

Shingleton, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 557) is a landmark decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), delivered on 2 April 2025 by Lady Justice Macur. The appeal was brought by Petty Officer Paul Shingleton against a composite sentence of 32 months’ custody—28 months for a sexual assault and 4 months’ imprisonment for two counts of disobedience to lawful commands. The appellant argued, with limited leave, that the Service Court erred in imposing imprisonment rather than service detention for the disciplinary offences and that the custodial term was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, clarifying the scope of sentencing discretion under the Armed Forces Act 2006 and associated guidelines, and confirming the appropriate standard for reviewing perceived errors in sentencing categories.

Key issues:

Whether an immediate prison sentence for service disciplinary offences is permissible when the civilian equivalent offence crosses the custody threshold.
Whether the trial court erred in principle by choosing imprisonment over service detention.
Whether the four-month term for disobedience was manifestly excessive.

Parties:

Appellant: Petty Officer Paul Shingleton.
Respondent: The Crown (R.).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence imposed by the Service Court. It ruled that:

The Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Service Court Sentencing Guideline permit immediate prison sentences where the civilian equivalent offence would attract immediate custody.
It was impracticable and unrealistic to require service detention for the disciplinary offences when they were intrinsically linked to a grave sexual assault already attracting a lengthy prison term.
The sentencing judge’s reference to the wrong guideline category (1B instead of 2A) did not render the sentence manifestly excessive or unlawful in principle.
Applying the correct category (2A), high culpability and category 2 harm justified a starting point of six months’ imprisonment, reduced to four months for plea mitigation, and consecutive to the 28-month term. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents and Statutory Framework Cited

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Prohibits identification of a victim in publications without waiver. It underscores the anonymity provisions applied throughout the proceedings.
Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 3(1): Defines the offence of sexual assault, under which the appellant pleaded guilty.
Armed Forces Act 2006, section 12(1): Creates the offence of disobedience to lawful commands. The Court emphasized the obligation on Service Courts to “have regard to” Sentencing Council guidelines.
Service Court Sentencing Guideline (Disciplinary Offences) Version 6: Structured into culpability steps and harm categories (1–3). It incorporates a custody threshold mirroring civilian guidelines and allows service detention “as a direct alternative to an immediate prison sentence” where in the interests of service and justice.
Definitive Sentencing Guidelines (Civilian): Although not directly binding, they form the model for Service Court guidelines and underpin the “immediate custody threshold” principle.
Principle of Totality: A well-established sentencing principle in both civilian and military jurisdictions requiring that the aggregate sentence be just and proportionate.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning can be broken into several strands:

1. Availability of Immediate Prison Sentences

Paragraph 4.6.1 of the Service guideline provides that if a civilian court would impose immediate custody, a Court Martial “is also likely to” do so. The Court rejected the submission that service detention must be preferred because:

The offences of disobedience were intrinsically linked to the sexual assault, a matter clearly crossing the custody threshold.
There was no provision in the Armed Forces Act or guideline mandating service detention where an immediate prison term was feasible and appropriate.

2. Consecutive Sentencing and Analogy to Bail Breach

The Court accepted the Crown’s analogy that disobeying orders to avoid contact with the victim was akin to breaching bail conditions. Consecutive sentences were appropriate to reflect the distinct harm to discipline and risk to the complainant’s welfare.

3. Application of Culpability and Harm Categories

The Judge Advocate General found:

High culpability: Deliberate, premeditated, repeated disobedience by a senior non-commissioned officer.
Category 2 harm: More than trivial harm to discipline and victim welfare, but not rising to security or safety risk level required for Category 1.

This placed the starting point at 30 weeks’ service detention (high), with a range extending to 6 months’ imprisonment. A six-month term, reduced to four months for early plea, fell squarely within the correct ambit.

4. Error in Guideline Reference

While the sentencing judge erroneously referred to the Category 1B range, the Court concluded that the resulting discount and overall figure were consistent with the correct Category 2A starting-point and range. The error did not render the sentence manifestly excessive nor vitiate the lawfulness of the exercise of sentencing discretion.

Impact

The decision provides authoritative guidance on three fronts:

Sentencing Discretion: Confirms that Court Martial may impose immediate imprisonment where civilian equivalents cross the custody threshold, even for purely disciplinary offences.
Service Detention vs Imprisonment: Affirms that service detention remains a discretionary alternative “in the interests of the Service,” but is not mandatory if imprisonment better reflects the gravity and public interest.
Manifest Excessiveness Standard: Reinforces that a departure from an erroneous guideline reference will not give rise to reversal where the final sentence remains within the correct guideline range and reflects proper aggravating and mitigating factors.

Future appeals will need to demonstrate that a sentence falls outside the relevant category range or that an error in principle produces a wholly disproportionate outcome.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Service Detention: A custodial regime within military prisons, intended for disciplinary offences, not recorded on civilian criminal databases (PNC).
Immediate Custody Threshold: The point at which an offence and offender characteristics would normally attract an immediate prison sentence in a civilian court.
Category 2 Harm: Harm that is significant but not life-threatening or undermining national security; includes serious effects on unit cohesion or the welfare of individuals.
Principle of Totality: The requirement that, when multiple sentences are imposed, the overall term should be just and proportionate, avoiding unnecessary severity.
Manifestly Excessive: A high threshold of error review, meaning a sentence will only be overturned if it is outrageous or wholly outside the permissible range.

Conclusion

Shingleton marks an important clarification of military sentencing law. It confirms that:

Service Courts may impose immediate imprisonment for disciplinary offences linked to serious offences crossing the custody threshold.
Service detention remains an alternative but not a mandatory outcome.
Errors in guideline labelling will not invalidate a sentence if the final result aligns with the correct category range and reflects proper balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The judgment thus reinforces the integrity of Service Court sentencing, ensures alignment with civilian sentencing principles where appropriate, and sets a high bar for appellate interference on grounds of manifest excessiveness.