Roach, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 22 October 2024, in the Crown Court at Sheffield, the Appellant was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment for breaching a restraining order. The Appellant appealed this sentence with the leave of the single judge.

In September 2021, the Appellant went to his parents' home demanding a place to stay but was refused access. He damaged a garden gate and was charged and sentenced for that offence. A restraining order was imposed preventing contact with his parents, which the Appellant repeatedly breached.

On 21 September 2024, the Appellant again went to his parents' home in breach of the restraining order. His mother, aged 59 with health problems, saw him outside looking through the living room window, shouting abuse and stating he needed mental health help. Despite her requests, the Appellant refused to leave for about four hours, during which his behaviour became erratic. He claimed to have a knife and threatened self-harm, prompting multiple calls to the police. The police eventually attended and arrested him for breaching the restraining order. The Appellant admitted during police interview that he had fabricated the knife story to force police attendance and obtain mental health assistance.

The Appellant has 20 convictions for 36 offences, including seven previous convictions for breaching restraining orders, with prior custodial sentences imposed.

A pre-sentence report assessed the Appellant as a high risk of harm to known adults, including his parents, due to substance misuse and violent behaviour. His compliance with prior supervision was poor, with recalls for non-compliance and further offending.

The victim impact statement from the Appellant's mother described her as terrified, feeling imprisoned in her own home, and living in constant fear of the Appellant.

The sentencing judge categorized the offence as Category A culpability and Category 2 harm under the Sentencing Council guidelines for breach of restraining orders. The starting point was one year’s custody with a range up to two years. Considering the Appellant's seven previous convictions, the judge increased the sentence to three years, reducing it by 25% for the guilty plea, resulting in 27 months' imprisonment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to properly consider the Appellant's motivation for breaching the restraining order.
2. Whether excessive weight was given to the Appellant's previous convictions in sentencing.
3. Whether there was unjustifiable double counting of the previous convictions in categorizing culpability and aggravating the sentence.
4. Whether the sentencing judge failed to adequately explain the upward departure beyond the top of the sentencing range.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge failed to account for the Appellant’s motivation to seek help when breaching the restraining order.
• Excessive weight was placed on previous convictions.
• The judge double counted previous convictions by using them both in categorizing culpability and as an aggravating factor for sentence increase.
• The sentencing judge did not explain why the sentence exceeded the top of the guideline range before reduction for the guilty plea.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court affirmed the categorization of the offence as Category A culpability and Category 2 harm, based on the serious and persistent nature of the breach on 21 September 2024. The Appellant's conduct—remaining at the parents’ home for four hours, refusing to leave, shouting abuse, and making threats—justified this categorization. The harm was assessed as Category 2 due to the impact on the victim.

The court found that an upward adjustment to the sentence was warranted due to seven prior convictions for breach of restraining orders, which were distinct aggravating factors separate from the conduct on the day. This justified increasing the sentence from the starting point of one year to approximately 20 months before reduction.

The court rejected the argument that the Appellant's motivation to seek help mitigated the offence, emphasizing the purpose of the restraining order was to protect the parents, and alternative avenues for help existed.

The court also dismissed the double counting argument, explaining the previous convictions were considered separately from the categorization of culpability.

However, the court agreed that the sentencing judge erred in exceeding the top of the guideline range without sufficient explanation. The appropriate sentence before reduction for the guilty plea was about 20 months, reduced to approximately 15 months after applying the 25% discount.

The court considered suspension of the sentence but found it inappropriate due to the Appellant's poor compliance history and ongoing risk to his parents, concluding the offence crossed the custody threshold.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL, quashing the original sentence of 27 months' imprisonment and substituting a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment.

The direct effect is a reduction of the custodial sentence imposed on the Appellant. No new legal precedent was established. The decision reinforces adherence to sentencing guidelines and the requirement for clear justification when departing from the prescribed sentencing range.