Cooper, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer a sentence considered unduly lenient. The Defendant was sentenced at the Crown Court at Stafford on 20 September 2024 for two counts of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship contrary to section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The sentence imposed was an 18-month community order with requirements including 85 hours unpaid work, 15 days rehabilitation activity, and 65 days Building Better Relationships.

The Defendant, aged 38, was in a relationship with the victim from August 2019 to June 2021, with a separation period from February to October 2020 during which limited contact occurred. The victim reported violence, aggression, and control, leading to two counts of controlling and coercive behaviour covering November 2019 to February 2020 and February 2020 to July 2021.

Police involvement began in July 2021 following reports of abuse and threatening behaviour by the Defendant, including attempts to contact the victim against her wishes and threats to break into her home. The Defendant was arrested and interviewed but declined to answer questions. He was charged with controlling and coercive behaviour and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, pleading guilty to the former and not guilty to the latter.

An amended basis of plea was served prior to trial, outlining the nature of the relationship, mutual accusations, incidents of physical altercations, and acceptance of responsibility for controlling and coercive behaviour. The Defendant acknowledged specific incidents of force and threats, as well as the impact of alcohol on the relationship's instability.

At sentencing, no victim personal statement was presented. A pre-sentence report noted the Defendant's stable relationship over three years and recommended an 18-month community order as an appropriate risk management measure. The offence was categorised as 1B with a sentencing range of 26 weeks to two years six months. The judge imposed the community order without clear explanation regarding categorisation, plea discount, or mitigation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient regard to the wider facts beyond the basis of plea.
2. Whether the starting point of one year was appropriate and if the plea timing was properly considered.
3. Whether the custodial threshold was crossed, rendering the community order an inadequate reflection of the offence's seriousness.
4. Whether the sentence should have been suspended or immediate custody imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Insufficient regard was given to the wider facts beyond the agreed basis of plea, which should have influenced sentencing.
• The starting point of 1B offence category should have been towards the higher end of the sentencing range.
• The judge erred in treating the pleas as entered at the first opportunity given the dispute over the basis of plea.
• The custodial threshold was crossed, so the community order failed to reflect the seriousness of the offending.
• The sentence should not have been suspended, referencing sentencing guidelines and a precedent case (R v Katira) to support immediate custody.

Defendant's Arguments

• The judge properly considered the relevant issues and there was no basis to go behind the agreed basis of plea.
• The categorisation and starting point were correctly applied by the judge.
• The timing of the pleas justified some discount despite the dispute over the basis of plea.
• While accepting the custodial threshold was crossed, any sentence should have been suspended due to the Defendant’s period without re-offending.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Underwood and others [2004] EWCA Crim 2256; [2005] 1 CrAppR 13	Basis on which pleas can be proffered, agreed, and accepted by the court; court will not go behind an accepted basis of plea.	The court held that once a basis of plea is accepted by the judge and signed by parties, it is impermissible to consider facts beyond it for sentencing.
R v Katira [2020] EWCA Crim 89	Guidelines on suspension of custodial sentences and considerations for immediate custody.	The court acknowledged Katira as fact-specific and concluded that serious domestic violence does not always require immediate custody, distinguishing the present case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the issue of the basis of plea, affirming that the sentencing judge correctly relied on the agreed and accepted basis of plea, in line with established appellate principles. The court rejected the argument that the judge should have considered additional facts not included in the basis of plea, emphasizing fairness in sentencing only on admitted or proven facts.

Regarding the starting point and sentence length, the court recognized the need for an uplift due to the presence of two counts and aggravating factors identified by the Appellant. It also acknowledged mitigating factors, including a three-year period without reoffending and partial discount for plea, adjusted due to disputes over the plea basis.

The court concluded that the appropriate sentence should have been custodial, estimating a 15-month term reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the aggravating and mitigating features.

On whether the sentence should have been suspended, the court considered the probation report and the Defendant’s progress, as well as the absence of guideline mandates requiring immediate custody for serious domestic violence. The court found no basis to reject suspension given the risk management possible through a community order and the Defendant’s circumstances.

Ultimately, the court granted leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient but exercised discretion not to increase the sentence, leaving the community order intact due to the minimal practical effect of increasing the sentence and the Defendant’s positive progress.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED LEAVE TO REFER the sentence as unduly lenient but DECLINED TO INCREASE THE SENTENCE, thereby maintaining the original community order.

The direct effect is that the Defendant’s community order remains unchanged despite the court’s view that a custodial sentence would have been appropriate. No new precedent was established, and the decision reflects a discretionary balancing of the practical consequences of increasing the sentence against the Defendant’s rehabilitation progress.