Ikunnah, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns a total sentence of 39 months' imprisonment imposed by Mr Recorder Stephens in the Crown Court at The City on 3 August 2023. The Appellant, aged 24, faced 13 counts, with nine counts resulting in sentences following guilty pleas and four counts ordered to lie on the file. The offences included breaches of a non-molestation order, disclosure of a private sexual photograph with intent to cause distress, assault on an emergency worker, witness intimidation, and sending an electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

The Appellant and the principal complainant ("AH") were previously in a relationship that ended due to abusive behaviour by the Appellant. AH obtained a non-molestation order prohibiting the Appellant from contacting her. Despite this, the Appellant repeatedly breached the order through emails, calls, and other communications over approximately a year. He also sent a private sexual image of AH to her new boyfriend and committed assault on a police officer during an unrelated arrest. Further offences involved witness intimidation and threatening communications after the expiry of the non-molestation order.

The Appellant pleaded guilty to most counts, with some pleas entered late in the proceedings. He had a prior record including cautions and convictions for possession of a controlled drug, assault by battery, driving offences, and breaching a community order. Many offences were committed while the Appellant was subject to bail or a community order. The sentencing judge imposed consecutive and concurrent sentences totaling 39 months.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the total sentence of 39 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offences and the Appellant's personal mitigation.
2. Whether the sentencing judge properly applied offence-specific guidelines and principles such as credit for guilty pleas and the totality principle.
3. How to appropriately assess culpability and harm in relation to breaches of a non-molestation order and related offences.
4. Whether the individual sentences for the various counts should run concurrently or consecutively to reflect the overall seriousness of the offending conduct.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The total sentence of 33 months for the Appellant's offending over a 14-month period was manifestly excessive.
• The Appellant was a young man with limited previous convictions and no prior custodial sentence.
• The Appellant had pleaded guilty, though mostly at a late stage, and had personal mitigation.
• The sentencing judge failed to properly apply offence-specific guidelines.
• Insufficient credit was given for the guilty pleas.
• There was an inadequate allowance for the principle of totality in sentencing.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing judge's approach and found deficiencies in the explanation of how custodial terms were derived, the application of guilty plea credit, and the principle of totality. The court noted that the sentencing judge treated multiple breaches of the non-molestation order as separate offences, which obscured the overall assessment of culpability and harm. The court emphasised that the breaches should have been considered as a single course of conduct, reflecting persistent and serious breaches causing substantial distress (category 2 harm) but not very serious harm.

Regarding the offence involving disclosure of a private sexual image, the court found the sentence disproportionate to the offence's severity under the relevant guideline, which the sentencing judge had not applied. The court preferred a concurrent sentencing approach for counts covering breaches and the private sexual image offence to better reflect the overall seriousness.

For witness intimidation and malicious communications offences committed after the expiry of the non-molestation order, the court agreed with the sentencing judge that these should be consecutive to prior sentences but found the term excessive given the guilty plea and lack of prior custodial sentences, adjusting it accordingly.

The court upheld the sentence for assault on an emergency worker, finding no reason to interfere.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART and made the following orders:

• Quashed the sentences on counts 2 and 5 to 9 (totaling 21 months) and substituted concurrent sentences of 16 months on each count.
• Upheld the consecutive 6-month sentence on count 10 (assault on an emergency worker).
• Quashed the 12-month sentences on counts 12 and 13 and substituted concurrent sentences of 9 months to run consecutively to the other sentences.

The overall effect was to reduce the Appellant's total sentence from 39 months to 31 months' imprisonment. The decision did not establish new precedent but clarified the proper application of sentencing guidelines, credit for guilty pleas, and the principle of totality in cases involving multiple related offences and breaches of protective orders.