Crewe, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

His Majesty's Solicitor General applied for leave to refer a sentence considered unduly lenient, imposed by Mr Recorder Rouch in the Crown Court at The City on 18 February 2025. The aggregate sentence was two years' imprisonment, comprising multiple counts across two indictments: one count of harassment resulting in four months' imprisonment; and three counts on the second indictment including controlling or coercive behaviour (20 months consecutive), assault occasioning actual bodily harm (30 weeks concurrent), and intentional strangulation (16 months concurrent). The offender had pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearings, receiving a 25% reduction.

The Solicitor General did not dispute the offence categorisations, starting points, or the Recorder’s decision to impose consecutive and concurrent sentences as structured. The primary criticism focused on the adjustments made for totality and the general sentencing level on the second indictment, contending that these adjustments rendered the aggregate sentence unduly lenient.

The offender, represented by Attorney Britton, argued the sentence was justifiable, emphasizing mitigating factors such as the offender's age, difficult upbringing, and mental health issues.

Regarding the factual background, the offender, aged 27, had been in an intimate relationship with the victim for approximately two years, which ended in 2022. The offender had a history of prior convictions including domestic abuse-related offences against the victim. The offences underlying the sentences involved harassment, controlling and coercive behaviour, assault causing actual bodily harm, and intentional strangulation, occurring over a protracted period and involving repeated abusive and controlling conduct. The victim suffered significant psychological harm including PTSD, depression, and panic attacks, as detailed in victim personal statements.

The sentencing hearing revealed that the Recorder considered the offender’s mental health diagnosis (ADHD), previous convictions, and other mitigating factors but concluded the offender's culpability was not reduced by his condition. The Recorder applied the principle of totality to impose a just and proportionate sentence, reducing individual sentences for totality but maintaining the aggregate at two years.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the aggregate sentence imposed was unduly lenient in light of the principle of totality and proper weighting of offences.
2. Whether the Recorder erred in the application of totality adjustments, specifically the reductions made to individual sentences and the concurrent handling of counts 2 and 3 of the second indictment without adequately reflecting their additional criminality in the sentence for count 1.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The Recorder's balancing exercise was flawed by failing to treat offending while on licence as an aggravating feature deserving weight.
• The Recorder overemphasised the offender’s immaturity despite his age at the time of offending being 27.
• Insufficient weight was given to the offender’s ongoing offending despite expressions of remorse.
• The reductions for totality on the harassment and coercive control offences were unjustified and lacked principled basis.
• The concurrent sentences for counts 2 and 3 failed to reflect their additional criminality in the sentence for count 1, rendering the overall sentence unduly lenient.

Offender's Arguments

• There was overlap between count 1 of the second indictment and counts 2 and 3, justifying the Recorder’s adjustments and reductions for totality.
• The Recorder properly applied the principle of totality to achieve a just and proportionate aggregate sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing adjustments with reference to the principle of totality and the structure of concurrent and consecutive sentences. It identified two principal errors by the Recorder: first, unjustified reductions for totality on the harassment and coercive control offences where no overlap existed, thus no basis for reducing sentences below those appropriate after trial (subject to plea credit); second, the failure to properly weight the sentence on count 1 of the second indictment to reflect the additional criminality of counts 2 and 3, which were ordered to be served concurrently without adjustment.

The court recognised that the offences represented a serious and prolonged course of coercive and violent conduct, but also acknowledged mitigating factors including the offender's mental health diagnosis and background. It cautioned against simple arithmetic addition of sentences, emphasizing the need for a proportionate aggregate sentence reflecting all relevant features.

After consideration, the court concluded the least aggregate sentence that could properly have been imposed was one restoring the reductions on the first indictment and properly weighting count 1 of the second indictment to account for counts 2 and 3, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 27 months for counts 1, 2, and 3 after plea reduction.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the sentence imposed by the Recorder was UNDULY LENIENT and intervened accordingly. It quashed the sentence on the first indictment and substituted a sentence of seven months' imprisonment, and quashed the sentence on count 1 of the second indictment substituting a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment. The aggregate sentence was thus increased to 34 months.

This decision directly affects the parties by increasing the offender’s aggregate custodial sentence. The court clarified that this substituted sentence represents the lowest sentence that could reasonably be passed, and that a longer sentence would not be manifestly excessive. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling is grounded in established principles of sentencing, totality, and proportionality.