BPR, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

Judge [Last Name] confirmed an anonymity direction issued under Rule 153 of the Court Martial Rules and, pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, directed that the Appellant must not be named in publication (the hearing had been listed under the cipher "BPR"). The Appellant pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 13 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (breach of a Standing Order). The Court Martial sentenced the Appellant to eight months' service detention and ordered dismissal from the Service. The Appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence was referred to the full court by the Registrar.

The factual background, as found by the Court Martial and recited to this court, is as follows. The Appellant enlisted in 2008 at a young age and rose to be a senior non‑commissioned officer, serving with distinction. On 8 March 2022 the Appellant's regiment issued a Standing Order prohibiting members of Company A from travelling to The City (the ongoing conflict zone) except as required for official duties; the Order warned that contravention could give rise to service charges.

The Appellant and his partner had a young son; the relationship deteriorated and the partner returned to her family home with the child. The Appellant applied for a career intermission (a career break) to spend more time with his family; the break was approved and began on 1 August 2023. The standard form for that break included acknowledgements that the applicant remained a serving member of Company A under the Armed Forces Act and could be recalled to service and that permission was required to take up any employment while on career intermission.

Despite the approved break, the Appellant travelled to The City and served there with Company B in a training role. His Commanding Officer contacted him; the Appellant admitted where he was and what he was doing, returned to The State in late November 2023 when ordered to do so, and upon arrest by the Royal Military Police (part of Company A) immediately stated that he had been to The City. For reasons not explained in the materials, nearly twelve months elapsed before the section 13 charge was preferred; the Appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

The Judge Advocate General's Guidance on Sentencing in the Service Courts (the GSSC), 7th edition, applies to Court Martial sentences on or after 1 January 2025 and was therefore treated as applicable. The GSSC contains offence‑specific guidance for section 13 offences, notes the importance of the maintenance of discipline (section 237 Armed Forces Act 2006), recognises a range of culpability (distinguishing deliberate contravention as Category A and reckless contravention as Category B), and lists harm factors (with Category 1 including causing security risk or significant effect on discipline or unit cohesion).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court Martial erred in categorising the Appellant's breach as deliberate (Category A) rather than reckless (Category B) under the GSSC, such that the starting point and range of sentence were incorrect.
2. Whether the harm from the contravention was correctly assessed as Category 1 (significant personal risk and potential security/reputational risk) rather than a lesser harm category.
3. Whether dismissal from the Service was a lawful and proportionate additional penalty in the circumstances.
4. Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive such that leave to appeal and the sentence should be set aside or reduced.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing court misapplied the GSSC by finding deliberate contravention: the Appellant genuinely believed the Standing Order did not apply to him while on his approved career intermission, so his conduct was closer to a reckless contravention (Category B) rather than a deliberate, premeditated decision (Category A).
• The harm was limited to the Appellant himself; there was no evidence of security or safety risks to others, and therefore the case should properly have been placed in a lesser harm category (argued as B2 rather than A1).
• Dismissal from the Service was disproportionate given the Appellant's service record and the personal circumstances; the severe consequences of dismissal should have led the Court Martial to choose a lesser sanction.

Appellee's Arguments

• The Court Martial correctly categorised the offence as Category A culpability and Category 1 harm and imposed an appropriate sentence in accordance with the GSSC.
• The Court Martial properly considered whether dismissal was justified and was entitled to conclude that the seriousness of the contravention (by a senior NCO) warranted dismissal.
• The Court of Appeal should be mindful, as explained in the cited authority R v Love, that those imposing or confirming sentences in the service context are generally better placed to assess seriousness and the penalties necessary for discipline and efficiency of the forces; appellate interference should be cautious.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Love (1998) 1 Cr.App.R 458	The appellate court should be cautious about interfering with service sentencing: those within the service context are generally better placed to assess seriousness and appropriate penalties to maintain discipline and efficiency.	The court relied on this principle to emphasise deference to the Court Martial's assessment of seriousness and the appropriateness of dismissal and detention, informing its decision to refuse leave to appeal.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reiterating that the Appellant would be treated as of previous good character and described the case as "sad" given the Appellant's service. The court then critically examined the Court Martial's findings and the application of the GSSC.

On culpability, the court accepted the Court Martial's detailed factual findings that the Appellant had taken a sequence of deliberate steps after his career intermission began—making travel arrangements, travelling to [Number] Main Street and crossing a border, making contact with Company B authorities, and signing documentation placing himself under the authority of Company B—while aware of the Standing Order and the terms of his career break form. Those factual findings supported the Court Martial's conclusion that the contravention was deliberate and premeditated. Accordingly, the court held that the offence properly fell within Category A (high culpability).

On harm, the court agreed with the Court Martial that the Appellant's conduct posed significant personal risk and had the potential to create important security and reputational risks to The State and could adversely affect discipline and unit cohesion. That reasoning supported placement in Category 1 (highest harm).

The court addressed the status of the GSSC: although it is not statutorily binding in the way civilian Sentencing Council guidance can be, the GSSC is authoritative and has been given due regard by the Court Martial Appeal Court. Departure from the guidance requires good reason and explanation. The court found no misapplication of the guidance by the Court Martial: the Court Martial applied the guideline, adopted the bottom end of the category range, and gave clear reasons for its approach.

Regarding mitigation and reduction, the court noted the Court Martial had properly considered a pre‑sentence report and multiple character references praising the Appellant's military service and professionalism; the Court Martial treated these as substantial mitigation. The Court Martial imposed a starting point equivalent to 12 months' custody under the guideline but, taking into account the guilty plea, imposed service detention rather than imprisonment and reduced the term by one third to eight months' detention.

On the penalty of dismissal, the court acknowledged its severity but rejected the submission that it amounted to impermissible double punishment. The Court Martial had considered the gravity of dismissal and the Appellant's circumstances but concluded that the deliberate contravention by a senior NCO, in circumstances that could have caused very grave consequences for The State if he had been killed, wounded or captured, made dismissal unavoidable. The appellate court saw no error in that conclusion.

For these reasons the court concluded there was no arguable ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive or otherwise wrongly imposed.

Holding and Implications

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE IS REFUSED.

Direct effect: the Court Martial's sentence stands—eight months' service detention and dismissal from the Service remain in force. The court upheld the Court Martial's categorisation of culpability (Category A) and harm (Category 1), its application of the GSSC as authoritative guidance, and its conclusion that dismissal was a necessary and proportionate sanction in the circumstances.

Broader implications: the judgment confirms that the GSSC, while not statutorily binding, is authoritative and should be given due regard by Courts Martial; departures require good reasons which must be explained. The decision does not purport to establish a new principle of law beyond these applications of existing guidance and precedent; the court expressly treated the matter as one where deference to the Court Martial's assessment of service discipline and appropriateness of sanction was warranted.