Mercer, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion was delivered by Judge Freedman on an application by the Applicant for leave to appeal against five concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment imposed for five breaches of a non-molestation order contrary to section 42A(1) and (5) of the Family Law Act 1996.

The Applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 11 June 2025 at The Crown Court at The City by Judge Rankin. The Recorder (Judge Rankin) also made a Restraining Order for five years, until 11 June 2030, which prevents the Applicant from contacting the Complainant or the Complainant's Daughter and from coming within 50 metres of the Complainant's home.

The Applicant's initial application for leave to appeal was refused on paper by a single judge. The Applicant sought to renew that application but was out of time and applied for an extension of time of 21 days on the basis of a delay in receipt of the single judge's order; a chronology was supplied. The Court granted the requested extension of time to permit renewal of the application for leave to appeal.

The breaches occurred on 4 November 2024, 9 November 2024, 10 November 2024, 16 December 2024 and 3 March 2025. The Complainant (the Applicant's sister) had obtained a non-molestation order from The Family Court on 23 April 2024 by consent; that order was in force until 4 pm on 23 April 2025. The Applicant was represented at the Family Court hearing and the meaning and effect of the order would have been explained to him.

The non-molestation order prohibited the Applicant from using or threatening violence against the Complainant (or encouraging others to do so), from intimidating, harassing or pestering the Complainant (or encouraging others to do so), from contacting the Complainant (including by telephone, text, email, social media or via third parties), and from going to, entering, or attempting to enter the Complainant's home or the road where that home is situated.

The factual particulars of each breach as set out to the court are: on 4 November 2024 the Complainant and her daughter saw the Applicant talking to his mother near the home at about 4:52 pm; on 9 November 2024 Ring doorbell footage showed the Applicant outside the home at around 3:20 pm having attended to collect money from his father; on 10 November 2024 the Applicant was again recorded outside the home on the doorbell footage; on 16 December 2024 the Applicant was captured on the doorbell footage walking up and down outside the home between 10:00 and 10:15 am; on 3 March 2025 the Complainant's daughter heard banging and saw the Applicant's face pressed to a glass window looking into the property, after which the police were called.

The Applicant was arrested and, in an interview on 4 March 2025, admitted attending the address on occasions. He explained various motivations: concern for his mother who has Alzheimer's, returning his mother home on one occasion, and missing his parents; he estimated he had visited roughly six or seven times since the first occasion. He confirmed he was aware of the non-molestation order and its conditions but considered it unfair because it prevented him from seeing his parents.

The Complainant provided a victim impact statement describing fear, loss of the protective expectation the order should have provided, an inability to concentrate on her role as primary carer for their parents, feelings of being unsafe in her own home, and concern for her daughter's safety.

At the time of sentence the Applicant was aged 63. His recorded criminal history included five convictions for seven offences from 2022 to 2024: a suspended sentence in 2022 for various sexual offences; a fine in 2023 for failing to comply with notification requirements; a community order in March 2024 for failure to comply with notification requirements; a community order in August 2024 for breach of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order; and one day's imprisonment in September 2024 for breach of a suspended sentence.

Judge Rankin treated the offending as aggravated by the previous convictions and by the fact that some offences were committed while on bail. With reference to the sentencing guidelines the Recorder placed the offending in category A culpability and category 2 harm, adopted a starting point for a single offence of one year's custody (with a range up to two years), assessed that the sentence after trial would have been 18 months, gave full credit for the early guilty plea, and imposed concurrent sentences of 12 months' immediate custody for the five breaches, applying the principle of totality.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether to grant the Applicant a 21-day extension of time to renew an application for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Whether the sentence imposed (five concurrent 12-month custodial sentences for breaches of a non-molestation order) was manifestly excessive or affected by any error of principle such that leave to appeal should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant sought an extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal, asserting there had been a delay in his receipt of the single judge's order and providing a chronology to explain that delay.
• The Applicant queried the calculation of his sentence and the effect of time served on remand; he had served 14 weeks before sentence and believed he was due for release sooner than indicated.
• The Applicant asserted personal mitigation: that he is a carer for a disabled partner and that he was a primary carer for his parents, which he said justified early release.
• The Applicant relied on family statements (another sister) claiming that the Complainant was not frightened and alleging the Complainant's motive was to control parental finances.
• The Applicant submitted that the non-molestation conditions were unfair because they prevented him from seeing his parents.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any contrary arguments advanced by a Crown or respondent representative in relation to the renewed application for leave to appeal; the court's reasoning responds principally to the Applicant's written representations and the sentencing decision under challenge.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in stages. First, the Court accepted the Applicant's explanation for delay in the receipt of the single judge's order and granted the 21-day extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal.

Turning to the sentencing challenge, the Court reviewed the factual basis of the offences, the terms of the non-molestation order and the Applicant's admissions. The Court noted the following factors relied on by the sentencing judge (Judge Rankin) and endorsed those factual and legal assessments:

• The Recorder's classification of the offending as category A culpability (persistent breach of the restraining order) and category 2 harm (causing fear and distress) under the sentencing guidelines was appropriate.
• The persistent disregard of the court's non-molestation order was inherent in the offences and was a significant aggravating feature.
• There were five separate offences within a four-month period, demonstrating repetition and persistence.
• Some offences were committed while the Applicant was on bail, which aggravated culpability.
• The Applicant's relevant history of offences in 2022–2024 (including failures to comply with notification requirements, breach of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and offending during the operation of a suspended sentence) increased the seriousness of the present offending.
• The effect on the Complainant — fear for her own and her daughter's safety and the undermining of protective expectations — was significant and a material factor supporting immediate custody.

The Recorder had used a starting point of one year's custody for a single offence (with a stated range up to two years), and assessed that, but for the plea, the appropriate sentence after trial would have been 18 months. The Recorder then gave full credit for an early guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 12 months and ordered the five sentences to run concurrently, applying the principle of totality. The Court considered that the upward adjustments made prior to allowing the reduction for the guilty plea were not excessive in all the circumstances and that the totality principle had been applied.

The Court also addressed points raised by the Applicant in his written representations:

• Time spent in custody on remand (14 weeks) does not count double for the purpose of calculating time to serve but does count against the sentence under section 240ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; the Court noted this statutory position.
• The Applicant's claim that he was a primary carer for his parents was rejected by the Court: the Complainant was the primary carer and the Applicant's representations showed a lack of insight into his own conduct and the reasons for the court orders.
• The Court rejected the suggestion that the Complainant was not frightened or that the Complainant's motive was financial control; the Court emphasised that the non-molestation order had been made for protective purposes and the Applicant had pleaded guilty to repeated breaches.

Given these considerations, the Court concluded there was no arguable case that the sentence was manifestly excessive or involved an error of principle. Consequently, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence had no real prospect of success and was refused.

The Court additionally clarified and emphasised the terms of the Restraining Order and the consequences of non‑compliance. It recorded the Restraining Order (with identifying names edited out) and reiterated the specific prohibitions: no direct or indirect contact with the Complainant or the Complainant's Daughter, and not to come within 50 metres of the Complainant's home, the order lasting until 11 June 2030. The Court warned the Applicant that disobedience of that order constitutes an offence punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and that any future breach would be treated particularly seriously in light of the present offending.

Holding and Implications

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Direct consequences for the parties:

• The Applicant's custodial sentence of 12 months' immediate imprisonment (five concurrent terms) stands subject to the ordinary operation of credit for time served under section 240ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
• The Restraining Order made at sentence remains in force until 11 June 2030. The Applicant was expressly warned to familiarise himself with and to observe the Restraining Order; further breaches will expose him to criminal prosecution and the possibility of additional imprisonment (up to five years for breach).

Broader implications: the Court did not identify or establish any new legal principle or precedent. The opinion applies established sentencing principles (categorisation of culpability and harm under the sentencing guidelines, guilty-plea credit, aggravating features such as repetition and offending while on bail, and the totality principle) to the facts of this case and concludes that the sentence was within the range of appropriate and proportionate outcomes.