Factual and Procedural Background
The Attorney General sought leave to refer sentences passed on the Defendant at the Crown Court of The City on 25 August 2017 under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as being unduly lenient. The Defendant was arraigned on multiple indictments and faced charges including perverting the course of justice, witness intimidation, dangerous driving, handling stolen goods, making threats to kill, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, putting a person in fear of violence by harassment, and criminal damage.
The Defendant pleaded guilty to several counts including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, perverting the course of justice, dangerous driving, criminal damage, harassment, and handling stolen goods. The prosecution offered no evidence on some charges, resulting in not guilty verdicts on those counts.
On 25 August 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a total term of 32 months' imprisonment for the offences to which he pleaded guilty. Additional orders included an indefinite restraining order to prevent contact with the victim, a driving disqualification, and a victim surcharge. The offences arose from a history of domestic violence and abuse directed at the victim, including an incident involving the discharge of an air pistol causing actual bodily harm, dangerous driving intended to cause injury, and harassment.
The Defendant had a prior criminal record including convictions for robbery, possession of a knife, and attempted burglary. A pre-sentence report noted the Defendant’s lack of insight into the harm caused and issues with power, control, and jealousy. Victim personal statements described fear, anxiety, and the desire to move on without the Defendant in her life.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentences passed on the Defendant were unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
- The appropriate sentencing level for offences involving possession and use of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and actual bodily harm.
- The appropriate variation of the driving disqualification period in light of the offences and sentencing guidelines.
Arguments of the Parties
Attorney General's Arguments
- The overall sentence of 32 months was unduly lenient given the sequence and seriousness of offending.
- Sentences for possession and use of the imitation firearm, perverting the course of justice, and dangerous driving were particularly inadequate.
Defendant's Arguments
- The sentence was passed by an experienced judge who considered the guidelines and gave appropriate credit for guilty pleas.
- While the sentence was lenient, it was not unduly so.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Avis [1998] 1 Cr App R 420 |
Guidance on sentencing for offences involving firearms and imitation firearms, including factors such as type of weapon, use, intent, and offender’s record. |
The court applied the principles from Avis to assess the seriousness of the Defendant’s possession and use of an air pistol, determining that the sentence for the firearm offence was too low and required substantial increase. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the nature and circumstances of the Defendant’s offences, particularly focusing on the possession and use of an imitation firearm (an air pistol) which was loaded and discharged at the victim causing actual bodily harm. The court applied the four questions from the Avis precedent to assess the seriousness of the firearm offence, noting that the Defendant had no lawful reason for possession, intended to cause fear, and deliberately discharged the weapon.
The court acknowledged the credit given for guilty pleas and considerations of totality but found the sentence of 12 months on the firearm-related counts did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences committed in the victim’s home. The court also found force in the Attorney General’s criticism of the sentences for perverting the course of justice and dangerous driving, both of which involved serious harm or interference with justice.
The court recognized the sustained domestic abuse involving intimidation, threats, violence, and coercion, which culminated in a total sentence that was insufficient. Consequently, the court granted leave to refer the sentence and proceeded to vary the sentence to better reflect the overall criminality.
In respect of the driving disqualification, the court varied the period to 50 months with a discretionary period of 24 months to align with statutory provisions and the severity of the offences.
Holding and Implications
Leave to refer the sentence was granted and the sentence was varied.
The court substituted the 12-month sentence for possession and use of the imitation firearm with a sentence of 4 years, resulting in an overall sentence of 5 years and 8 months' imprisonment. The driving disqualification period was extended to 50 months with a discretionary period of 24 months. Other sentences remained unaffected.
The decision directly affects the Defendant by increasing the custodial sentence and driving ban to better reflect the seriousness of the offences. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing sentencing principles and statutory provisions.