Factual and Procedural Background
On 15th January 2024, before His Honour Judge Dugdale sitting in the Crown Court at Winchester, the Applicant pleaded guilty to one offence of breach of a restraining order and one offence of damaging property. On 26th February 2024, the Applicant was sentenced by Lord Justice Edis to 24 months' imprisonment for the breach offence, with no separate penalty for the damage offence. Suspended sentences totalling eight weeks' imprisonment were activated concurrently, and a fresh restraining order was imposed for five years with the same restrictions as the breached order.
The Applicant, aged 58, has an extensive criminal history with 30 prior sentences for 59 offences, including multiple offences involving threatening behaviour, assault, and breaches of restraining orders, many relating to the victims of the present offences. The victims are a mother and her daughter, referred to as "C1" and "C2" respectively, with the daughter being in her early teens.
The present offences occurred shortly after a suspended sentence and restraining order were imposed in July 2023. They involved repeated breaches of all aspects of the restraining order, including aggressive intimidation such as throwing stones, damaging property, and threatening gestures on 12th August 2023. The Applicant was reported to have a history of alcohol misuse and mental health diagnoses but showed no remorse and denied responsibility. The victims reported severe impacts on their safety, wellbeing, and daily lives.
The Applicant applied for leave to appeal against the total sentence of two years' imprisonment, and this application was referred to the full court by the Registrar.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence of 24 months' imprisonment for the breach of the restraining order was manifestly excessive, particularly given the applicable sentencing guidelines.
- Whether the court was justified in departing from the sentencing guideline range in the interests of justice.
- The correct application of the Sentencing Code provisions regarding the duty to follow sentencing guidelines and the activation of suspended sentences.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The sentence before reduction for the guilty plea was more than double the top of the relevant guideline category range and was therefore manifestly excessive.
- There were aggravating features but no real mitigation to justify such a high sentence.
Respondent's Arguments
- The sentencing judge was entitled to find that sentencing within the guideline range would be contrary to the interests of justice.
- The total sentence was not manifestly excessive considering the Applicant's extensive previous offending, the proximity of the offences to the restraining order, the impact on victims, aggravating factors such as alcohol misuse, and previous failures to comply with non-custodial sentences.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by recalling the statutory framework under sections 59 and 60 of the Sentencing Code, which impose a duty to follow relevant sentencing guidelines unless it is contrary to the interests of justice. The sentencing guideline for breach of a restraining order sets an offence range from a fine to four years' custody, with category B2 providing a starting point of 12 weeks' custody and a range up to one year.
The sentencing judge had placed the offence in category B2 but imposed a sentence of 30 months before reduction for the guilty plea, justifying this substantial upward departure due to the exceptional seriousness of the Applicant's offending history, the very serious harm to the victims, and aggravating factors including alcohol misuse and failure to respond to previous sentences.
However, the court found that while a substantial increase above the guideline starting point was justified, the final sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered that the appropriate sentence before credit for the guilty plea was 20 months' imprisonment, reduced to 16 months after applying a 20% discount. The suspended sentences were to be activated fully and run consecutively to the custodial sentence.
The court also noted that the restraining order for five years would remain in force and that the damage offence would attract no separate penalty.
Holding and Implications
The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal to the extent that it QUASHED the original 24 months' imprisonment sentence and the concurrent activation of the suspended sentences. It SUBSTITUTED a sentence of 16 months' imprisonment for the breach offence and ordered the suspended sentences totalling eight weeks' imprisonment to be activated in full and served consecutively to the custodial sentence.
The restraining order for five years remains in force. No separate penalty was imposed for the damage offence. The decision directly affects the Applicant by reducing the custodial sentence but does not establish any new legal precedent.