Jefferies, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

An order under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 was made in the Mold Magistrates' Court on 27 November 2021, protecting the identity of a child witness referred to as C and her mother as A. The Defendant, aged 21 at the time of the offences, pleaded guilty on 16 May 2022 at the Crown Court in Caernarfon to two counts: cruelty to a person under 16 and controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. Two counts of assault by beating were left on file. The Defendant was sentenced on 12 October 2022 to two years and six months' imprisonment on the controlling or coercive behaviour count, with a concurrent 15-month sentence for cruelty to a child, and a 20-year restraining order was imposed preventing contact with the victims.

The Solicitor General applied for leave to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal on grounds of undue leniency.

The facts reveal that the Defendant began a relationship with A in early 2021 and subsequently lived with her and her eight-year-old daughter C. The Defendant exhibited controlling and violent behaviour towards A and C, including interrogation about phone use, physical violence such as strangulation and pushing, verbal abuse, and forcing washing liquid into C’s mouth. The Defendant also had mental health issues and a history of self-harm. A recorded incidents of abuse which were played to the Defendant during police interviews. Victim personal statements from A and C described fear, abuse, and relief at the Defendant’s removal from their lives.

The Defendant had no previous convictions except a cannabis possession caution. A psychiatric report diagnosed a borderline personality disorder exacerbated by drug use. The sentencing judge categorized the offences according to relevant guidelines, considered mitigating factors including youth and mental health, and imposed concurrent sentences with a restraining order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the Defendant was unduly lenient and outside the range of sentences reasonably open to the sentencing judge.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to apply the Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse guideline in sentencing.
3. Whether the sentencing judge correctly applied sentencing principles regarding concurrency and totality in relation to multiple offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The sentencing judge should have imposed consecutive rather than concurrent sentences.
• The sentence on Count 2 should have been longer to properly reflect the overall criminality.
• The judge overlooked the Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse guideline, considering only offence-specific guidelines.
• The judge failed to adequately reflect aggravating factors and gave excessive weight to mitigating factors.
• The sentence was therefore unduly lenient.

Defendant's Counsel's Arguments

• The sentencing exercise was careful and appropriate.
• No gross error was made by the judge.
• The sentence was not unduly lenient.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the existence of the domestic abuse context integral to the controlling or coercive behaviour offence, noting that the Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse guideline was not explicitly referenced by counsel or the judge but its absence was not an error as the domestic context was central to the offence. The court accepted that the sentencing judge properly treated Count 2 as the lead offence and imposed concurrent sentences due to significant overlap in conduct affecting both victims.

The court examined whether the overall sentence of two years and six months was outside the permissible range. It found that the judge had started from the appropriate guideline starting point and had taken into account aggravating and mitigating factors, including the Defendant's youth, mental health issues, and lack of previous convictions. The judge's reduction for the guilty plea was also considered appropriate.

The court concluded that although the sentence was lenient, it was within the range of sentences a judge could reasonably impose when considering all relevant factors. There was no gross error or misapplication of sentencing principles.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal and dismissed the application for review on grounds of undue leniency.

The direct effect is that the original sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment with a concurrent 15-month sentence and a 20-year restraining order stands. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.