Cheetham, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 17 January 2025, in the Crown Court at Minshull Street (Manchester) before Judge Woodward, the appellant, then aged 26, pleaded guilty to three offences. The timing of his pleas resulted in a 13% reduction of the sentence the judge would otherwise have imposed. On 14 March 2025, the appellant was sentenced to a total of 36 months' imprisonment: 26 months for unlawful wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (count 2), 10 months consecutive for putting a person in fear of violence by harassment contrary to section 4(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (count 4), and 8 months concurrent for having an article with a blade or point contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (count 6).

The appellant appealed against the sentence with leave granted by a single judge, contending that the starting point for the harassment offence was too high and that insufficient attention was given to the principle of totality.

The facts underlying the offences involved a seven-year relationship between the appellant and Ms Reeves, which ended in spring 2024 due to the appellant’s substance misuse. Between June and July 2024, the appellant repeatedly contacted Ms Reeves causing her distress. On 3 July, the appellant assaulted Ms Reeves by spraying an energy drink in her face and twisting her wrists, causing bruising. On 9 or 10 July, the appellant remotely manipulated Ms Reeves’s Alexa device and smart lighting to cause distress. On 12 July, intoxicated, he threw stones and a lighter at Ms Reeves’s window and caused damage to a television aerial. On 14 July, he returned, threw stones, threatened to bring a gun, and entered Ms Reeves’s home holding a knife. In the ensuing altercation, Mr Allen, a friend living at the address, was injured and the appellant suffered a fractured skull requiring surgery. The appellant denied offending at interview, claiming he was the victim of an attack.

The appellant had nine prior convictions for 12 offences, primarily from 2014, including battery and assaulting a constable, but these were over ten years old. Victim personal statements from Ms Reeves, Mr Allen, and Ms Reeves’s daughter described significant fear and distress. The appellant had a supportive character reference from his employer, who described him as trustworthy and hardworking.

The pre-sentence report noted the appellant’s blaming strategies and denial of some offending behaviour, a troubled upbringing, lack of educational qualifications, and significant deficits in thinking relating to intimate relationships. His assessed risk of serious violent offending was low, but he posed a high risk of harm to Ms Reeves and Mr Allen and a medium risk to the general public and intimate partners.

At sentencing, the judge categorized the unlawful wounding as category A3 with a starting point of two years. The prosecution submitted the harassment offence fell between categories B2 and C2, with the defence arguing for categories C and D based on lesser culpability. The judge resolved the harassment offence as category B2 due to persistent conduct intended to maximize alarm and distress, with harm assessed as category 2. The bladed article offence was categorized as A2 but sentenced concurrently to avoid double counting. Aggravating features included the domestic context and alcohol use during some offences.

The judge imposed sentences reflecting reductions from trial starting points and concluded that the total sentence of 36 months was the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offending.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in taking too high a starting point for the harassment offence.
2. Whether insufficient attention was given to the principle of totality in sentencing consecutive offences.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the categorization of the harassment offence and the sentence imposed. It found the judge was entitled to classify the harassment as a category B2 offence due to the persistent conduct intended to maximize alarm and distress over a two-week period, causing significant distress to the victims. The escalation of the appellant's conduct culminating in a serious incident involving a knife was a critical factor supporting this classification. The domestic context and alcohol involvement were significant aggravating factors.

Regarding personal mitigation, the court acknowledged the appellant’s difficult upbringing and positive employment but agreed with the sentencing judge that the upbringing provided no excuse for the conduct. The appellant’s prior convictions were of limited relevance given their age. The injury the appellant sustained during the altercation was not considered mitigating.

On the issue of totality, the court recognized that while some judges might have reduced the overall sentence slightly due to the overlap of offences on the same occasion, the sentencing judge was not wrong in principle to impose consecutive sentences without further adjustment. The total sentence of 36 months was not manifestly excessive given the separate nature of the offences and the circumstances.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, confirming the categorization and starting point for the harassment offence and the appropriateness of the total sentence. The decision directly affects the appellant by affirming the 36-month custodial sentence and does not establish new precedent or broader legal principles beyond the application of established sentencing guidelines and principles of totality.