Noakes, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was sentenced on 2 October 2024 at the Crown Court at Nottingham by Her Honour Judge Crane to 24 months' imprisonment for one offence of stalking involving fear of violence. The Appellant now appeals against the sentence with the leave of the single judge.

The Appellant had been in a relationship with the Complainant for 14 years, beginning when both were aged 16, and they had two children together. The offence concerned the Appellant's conduct from August 2022, when the Complainant sought to end the relationship, until May 2024.

Following the initial breakup in August 2022, the Appellant reacted badly, including an incident where he took a knife and approached the children's bedrooms, causing significant concern to the Complainant. Shortly after, he made threats of self-harm involving an air rifle. The relationship ended, and the Appellant moved out.

Subsequently, the Appellant attended the Complainant's home on multiple occasions, making violent threats including threats to kill the Complainant and others. He sent numerous abusive and threatening text and WhatsApp messages, as well as voice messages, many containing explicit threats of violence and references to weapons such as a knife, an air rifle, and a chainsaw.

The sentencing judge considered the Appellant's previous good character, mental health issues, lack of prior convictions, and a guilty plea. The judge classified the offending as culpability B and harm category 1, indicating very serious distress to the victim and imposed a custodial sentence of 24 months after a 25% reduction for the guilty plea.

The Appellant appeals on two grounds: that the judge erred in placing the harm in category 1 and that the sentence should have been suspended.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in classifying the harm caused by the stalking as category 1 (very serious distress) rather than category 2.
2. Whether the custodial sentence imposed should have been suspended.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge incorrectly assessed the level of harm as category 1 instead of category 2.
• The sentence of immediate custody was inappropriate and should have been suspended.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the sentencing guideline which distinguishes harm categories based on the severity of distress and psychological harm caused to the victim. Category 1 involves very serious distress or significant psychological harm, while category 2 involves less severe harm.

The court noted the Victim Impact Statement, which, although not wholly focused on stalking harm, indicated significant adverse effects on the Complainant, including anxiety, weight loss, interrupted sleep, and fear of leaving the house. The court reviewed the extensive abusive and threatening messages and voice notes sent by the Appellant over many months, including threats involving weapons.

On this evidence, the court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to find that the harm crossed the threshold into category 1. The judge's starting point of 30 months (adjusted to 32 months notionally) was within the guideline range, and the final sentence of 24 months after credit for the guilty plea was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Regarding the second ground, the judge carefully considered the imposition guideline and concluded that only immediate custody would achieve appropriate punishment. The court found no reason to disturb this conclusion.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against sentence.

The direct effect is that the Appellant's custodial sentence of 24 months stands. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.