Shingleton, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 11 September 2022, the Appellant, a senior military member, committed a sexual assault against a junior serving member, who was younger in age and subordinate in rank. The victim lodged a complaint on the same day. Following the assault, the Appellant was ordered by his commanding officer to have no contact with the victim but disobeyed this order by texting and later contacting the victim by phone and in person. The Appellant claimed heavy intoxication and lack of recollection of both the assault and the initial order. On 6 June 2024, the Appellant was medically discharged from service. Subsequently, on the same date, he pleaded guilty before a Military Court to sexual assault and two counts of disobedience to a lawful command. The court imposed a 28-month sentence for sexual assault and a concurrent 4-month imprisonment for the disobedience offences, with the latter to run consecutively to the former. The Appellant appealed by limited leave against the sentence relating to the disobedience offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Military Court erred in imposing a sentence of imprisonment instead of service detention for the disobedience offences, particularly given the Appellant's medical discharge prior to sentencing.
2. Whether the sentence of four months' imprisonment for the disobedience offences was manifestly excessive, including whether the starting point of six months' imprisonment was appropriate.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The court-martial incorrectly imposed imprisonment rather than service detention, as the guidelines specify a starting point of 30 weeks' service detention for such offences.
• No consideration was given to the appropriateness of imprisonment versus service detention despite the Appellant's medical discharge.
• Service disciplinary offences do not appear on the Police National Computer, thus imprisonment for such offences is excessive.
• The four-month imprisonment sentence was manifestly excessive, with the six-month starting point being too high and insufficient regard given to previous guidance applicable at the time of the offence.

Respondent's Arguments

• The offences of disobedience were intrinsically linked to the sexual assault, which crossed the custody threshold, making service detention inappropriate.
• The Service Court Sentencing Guideline permits an immediate prison sentence where a civilian court would impose one in similar circumstances.
• The disobedience offences were akin to breaches of bail conditions, justifying a consecutive sentence to the sexual assault sentence.
• The sentence imposed was within the appropriate range considering culpability, harm, and aggravating factors.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 prohibits publication likely to identify the victim, protecting their anonymity. It acknowledged the linkage between the disobedience offences and the sexual assault, emphasizing that the latter crossed the custody threshold, making imprisonment appropriate over service detention. The court considered the Service Court Sentencing Guidelines, which align broadly with civilian sentencing principles but emphasize military discipline. It noted that the Judge Advocate General applied the correct approach by assessing culpability as high due to deliberate, premeditated disobedience and harm as category 2, reflecting significant welfare impact without endangering safety.

The court identified a minor error in the sentencing remarks where the Judge Advocate General referred to the starting point and range for a higher harm category than applicable but found this did not render the sentence manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The sentence of four months' imprisonment was within the upper range for the category and accounted for aggravating factors such as deliberate targeting and alcohol influence. The Judge Advocate General also considered mitigating factors including the Appellant's long service, plea of guilty, and mental health issues. The court concluded that the sentence was neither excessive nor improper, dismissing the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against the sentence imposed for the disobedience offences is DISMISSED.

The decision confirms that where service disciplinary offences are linked to more serious offences crossing the custody threshold, imprisonment rather than service detention may be appropriate. The ruling emphasizes adherence to the Service Court Sentencing Guidelines and the principle of totality in sentencing. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirming the reasonableness of the sentence in the circumstances. The direct effect is the upholding of the combined 32-month sentence imposed on the Appellant.