Judicial Opinion Summary (Anonymised)

Factual and Procedural Background

After a summary trial before The City Magistrates' Court, the Appellant, then aged 40, was convicted of: (a) an offence of engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship contrary to section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015; and (b) two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

On 25 July 2024 the Appellant was committed for sentence to The City Crown Court pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020. On 16 September 2024 Judge Moxon (the sentencing judge) in The City Crown Court sentenced the Appellant to 40 months' imprisonment for the controlling or coercive behaviour offence and shorter concurrent terms for the two assault offences. The sentencing judge also made a restraining order and imposed the victim surcharge.

The offences were committed against the Appellant's former partner (hereafter "the Victim"). The factual matrix set out in the material before the court was:

• The relationship involved sustained controlling conduct: control of the Victim's mobile telephone and social media, demands to delete men's contact details, restrictions on going out and dictating dress, verbal abuse and threats (including threats to have the Victim sectioned).
• Violence occurred throughout the relationship. In March 2021 the Appellant punched and kicked the Victim to the ribs causing very bad bruising that took about 12 weeks to recover from. In April 2024 the Appellant punched the Victim to the ribs, pushed her into a wardrobe and forced her to leave the house; the Victim spent the night outdoors and sustained bruising and swelling to the forehead and ribs.
• In a victim personal statement the Victim described profound psychological effects: feelings of worthlessness, paranoia, fear, avoidance of going out alone, and disturbed sleep.

Leave to appeal the sentence was refused on the papers by Judge Davis. The Appellant renewed the application for leave to appeal before the Full Court, and the opinion under summary was handed down by Judge Pepperall.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence should be granted.
2. Whether the overall sentence of 40 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
3. Whether insufficient consideration was given to the principle of totality in arriving at the overall sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The overall sentence was manifestly excessive.
• Insufficient consideration was given to totality (the proper aggregation of sentences for multiple offences).

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any opposing submissions by the Crown or other parties; only the Appellant's grounds for appeal (as renewed) are set out.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The opinion records the sentencing judge's reasoning and the appellate court's assessment of that reasoning. The material and analysis in the opinion are as follows.

Sentencing judge's analysis (Judge Moxon)

• The sentencing judge considered the Sentencing Council guidelines relevant to controlling or coercive behaviour, assault, and offences involving domestic abuse, and also addressed the question of totality.
• For the controlling or coercive behaviour offence the judge found:
  • Higher culpability: the conduct was persistent over a number of years, involved multiple methods to control the Victim, and was intended to humiliate and degrade.
  • Higher harm: the conduct caused the Victim very serious harm and distress with a substantial adverse effect.
  • Accordingly the sentencing starting point was identified as 2½ years' imprisonment with a category range of 1 to 4 years.
• For the two assault offences the judge found medium culpability:
  • The 2021 assault was treated as category 1: the Appellant used fists and feet and the Victim required weeks to recover. The starting point was 18 months with a category range of 9 months to 2½ years.
  • The 2024 assault was treated as category 2: the starting point was 9 months with a category range up to 18 months.
• The sentencing judge selected the controlling or coercive behaviour offence as the lead offence and stated that he would pass a sentence reflecting the Appellant's overall criminality; he therefore treated the assaults as aggravating features in assessing the overall sentence.
• The judge regarded the offence as aggravated to some extent by previous convictions, although those convictions were of some age and of a dissimilar character.
• On remorse and risk the judge found there was minimal evidence of remorse: the Appellant had denied the offences at trial, appeared focused on the effect on himself, and sought to blame the Victim. The pre-sentence report identified a high risk of future violence and a medium risk of serious harm to future intimate partners.
• Mitigating factors considered included the Appellant's progress in custody, his reported poor mental health (not affecting culpability but making prison harder for him), current prison conditions, and character references.

Appellate consideration (Single Judge and Full Court)

• Judge Davis (the Single Judge) refused leave to appeal on the papers. The Single Judge emphasised that there were two separate and serious instances of ABH and sustained coercive and controlling behaviour; therefore the overall sentence had to reflect all three offences. The Single Judge saw no error in the sentencing judge's categorisation for guideline purposes and considered that a total sentence of 40 months after trial properly reflected the available mitigation and the principles of totality.
• The Full Court (opinion delivered by Judge Pepperall) agreed with the Single Judge. The Full Court's reasoning emphasised:
  • The offending was sustained and serious in the context of an intimate relationship.
  • Particularly serious violence occurred in 2021.
  • The offences produced a serious impact upon the Victim.
  • On the basis of the sentencing judge's application of the Sentencing Council guidelines, the choice of the lead offence, the treatment of the assaults as aggravating features, and the limited mitigation (including minimal remorse and the risks identified in the pre-sentence report), there was no arguable error in categorisation or in the application of the principle of totality sufficient to warrant granting leave to appeal.

Holding and Implications

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused. The Full Court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal and directed a loss of time order of 28 days.

Direct consequences:

• The sentence imposed by the sentencing judge (40 months' imprisonment for the controlling or coercive behaviour offence, with shorter concurrent terms for the two assault offences), together with the restraining order and the victim surcharge imposed at sentence, stands.
• The Appellant's renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed and a loss of time order of 28 days was directed.

The opinion records no broader legal innovation and does not purport to establish new precedent; it upholds the sentencing judge's application of the Sentencing Council guidelines and the principle of totality in the particular factual circumstances of this case.