Humphreys, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Attorney General sought leave to refer a sentence regarded as unduly lenient, which was granted. The sentence was imposed by His Honour Judge Meegan in the Crown Court at Stoke on Trent on 7 March 2025, following the offender's guilty plea to an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship under section 76(1) and (11) of the Serious Crime Act 2015.

The offender received an 18-month imprisonment sentence, suspended for 2 years, with 200 hours of unpaid work and a rehabilitation activity requirement of 25 days. The offence occurred between 1 May 2022 and 31 October 2022, involving a relationship between the offender and the victim, hereinafter referred to as CY. The offender engaged in persistent controlling and coercive behaviour including frequent monitoring, financial exploitation, emotional degradation, physical assault, and an incident of strangulation causing significant injury.

The offender had a history of prior convictions, including a 2016 offence of grievous bodily harm against a former partner. The offender pleaded guilty on the day of trial after a Newton hearing rejected his account of events. The sentencing judge was initially misinformed about the timing of the guilty plea and was not fully informed about the Newton hearing or its outcome during sentencing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed for controlling or coercive behaviour was unduly lenient in terms of length and suspension.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the sentencing guidelines, particularly regarding culpability, harm, and discount for guilty plea.
3. Whether the sentence should have been immediate custody rather than suspended.

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney General's Arguments

• The judge erred in applying the guideline by failing to adequately account for multiple indicators of higher culpability, including prolonged conduct intended to maximise fear and distress, use of multiple controlling methods, and conduct intended to humiliate and degrade the victim.
• The harm caused included fear of violence on many occasions, very serious alarm or distress with substantial adverse effects on the victim, and significant psychological harm, including an incident of intentional strangulation.
• The judge erred in giving too large a discount for the guilty plea, which was entered on the day of trial and followed a Newton hearing resolved against the offender, warranting only a reduced discount.
• The overall sentence should have been well in excess of two years and should not have been suspended given the seriousness of the domestic abuse, particularly the strangulation incident and repeated physical assaults.

Offender's Arguments

• Acceptance that the offence was category A1 and that, due to the Newton hearing’s adverse outcome, only a 5% reduction for the guilty plea was appropriate.
• Emphasis on the offender’s substantial efforts to change, including engagement with community medical services, negative drug tests, and character references.
• Submission that the final sentence imposed by the judge was within the judge’s discretion and, even if lenient, was not unduly lenient.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the case as a serious example of coercive and controlling behaviour over nearly six months with devastating long-term effects on the victim. The conduct included a significant incident of intentional strangulation, aggravated by the offender's prior conviction for a serious offence against a former partner. The court acknowledged the offender’s troubled background and efforts to change but noted the offender’s lack of remorse during the Newton hearing.

The court considered whether the sentence length was appropriate and whether suspension was justified. It found the judge’s decision to suspend the sentence was primarily based on hopes of rehabilitation but failed to adequately consider the seriousness and aggravating features of the offence. The court emphasized the offender still posed a risk and that immediate custody was necessary for appropriate punishment.

Regarding the length of the custodial term, the court found the judge’s modest upward adjustment from the guideline starting point was unjustifiably lenient. The court determined a minimum custodial term of 3½ years was appropriate before any reduction for the late guilty plea, which should be limited to 5%. The court concluded the judge’s attempt to reduce the sentence to allow suspension was plainly wrong and contributed to the unduly lenient sentence.

Holding and Implications

The court QUASHED the original sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years and substituted it with an immediate custodial sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment.

The direct effect is the imposition of immediate custody rather than a suspended sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s history. No new legal precedent was established, but the decision underscores the importance of fully informed sentencing and the court’s duty to impose sentences proportionate to the gravity of controlling and coercive behaviour offences, especially where serious physical harm is involved.