Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal brought by the Appellant against sentence following conviction for two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The Appellant pleaded guilty on 2 April 2025 and received a 25% reduction for that plea. On 15 August 2025 the Appellant was sentenced at the Crown Court by Judge Knowles to concurrent terms of 12 months' imprisonment on each count, and five-year restraining orders were imposed preventing contact with the two victims.
The Appellant did not challenge the length of the sentence on appeal; the central complaint is that custody should have been suspended because of the Appellant's caring responsibilities. The Appellant is aged 52, has ten children and 13 grandchildren; four of the children live with the Appellant and two younger children have diagnosed additional needs. The Appellant had no relevant previous convictions apart from a driving offence.
The factual basis accepted at sentence was that the Appellant travelled from her home to the vicinity of the second victim's address with two adult children and another adult, intended to assault the victims, and took a leading, organising role in a planned group attack at the victims' home. Both victims were assaulted and taken to hospital; injuries were not serious but the incident was terrifying for them. An initially charged conspiracy-to-kidnap count was left on file.
The Registrar referred the application for leave to appeal against sentence to the full court. Leave was granted and this appeal was heard by the full court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge was wrong to impose immediate custody rather than suspending the sentence, having regard to the Appellant's caring responsibilities and the likely effect of custody on her dependent children.
- Whether the five-year restraining orders should be amended to remove or alter the 100-metre radius prohibition around any address at which the victims were known or suspected to be living.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The primary submission was that the custodial sentence should have been suspended because of the Appellant's caring responsibilities for younger children, including two with additional needs, and the disruptive and potentially harmful consequences for those children if their primary carer were imprisoned.
- The Appellant also submitted that the restraining orders should be amended so that the 100-metre radius prohibition be replaced by a more practicable term preventing attendance at any address at which the Appellant knew or reasonably believed either victim to be living, on the basis that the 100-metre measurement is impractical for compliance and enforcement.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments beyond the record that the respondent was represented and made clear and helpful submissions to the court. The court's reasoning indicates that the respondent opposed suspension of the sentence and supported maintaining the restraining order terms, but the opinion does not set out a discrete, itemised list of the respondent's submissions.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214 |
Guidance on giving full weight to the impact of imprisonment on those cared for by an offender; consideration of Article 8 ECHR family life issues and the three questions a sentencing judge must ask (interference with family life; lawful and legitimate aim; proportionality). |
The court applied Petherick to confirm that the sentencing judge must take full account of the effect of custody on dependants and must address the Article 8 proportionality balancing exercise when considering suspension. The court relied on Petherick in assessing whether the case was on the cusp of custody and whether the interference with family life rendered custody disproportionate. |
| R v Carla Foster [2023] EWCA Crim 1196 |
Recent authority addressing the approach to caring responsibilities in sentencing and the need to give weight to the impact on family life (Article 8) when considering custody versus suspension. |
The court referenced Foster as part of the line of authority reinforcing the need to consider family impact and Article 8 when deciding whether to suspend a sentence; it was used to situate the present case among cases where caring responsibilities were a central consideration. |
| R v Clayton Atkinson [2023] EWCA Crim 991 |
Standard of appellate review on sentence appeals: the appellate court asks whether the sentencing judge's decision fell outside the range of answers reasonably open to him/her. |
The court applied Clayton Atkinson to frame the governing standard of review: it would only interfere if the sentencing judge's decision not to suspend was outside the range of reasonable choices open to the judge. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court framed the appeal as a challenge to the sentencing judge's discretionary decision not to suspend custody and applied the established appellate standard: interference is only justified if the judge's decision was outside the range of reasonable responses (see Clayton Atkinson).
On the facts, the court accepted the sentencing judge's categorisation of the offending as category A1 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (high culpability, highest level of harm), and accepted that the starting point for that category was two years and six months' custody. The sentencing judge had reduced the sentence materially (to 12 months) in recognition of the Appellant's circumstances and had allowed 25% for the guilty plea.
The court emphasised the gravity of the Appellant's role: the Appellant was found to be the ringleader who planned and organised a journey to the victims' home with the intention of attacking them, persuaded two adult children and another adult to join, and took an active role in the assaults. The planned group attack in the victims' home and the resulting terror caused to the victims supported the judge's conclusion that immediate custody was appropriate.
The court then analysed the caring-responsibilities argument, taking into account both the pre-sentence materials before the sentencing judge and additional material supplied to the appeal court (a prison report, a probation officer's pre-appeal report into the impact of sentence on family and caring responsibilities, and an email from the Appellant's GP about health issues). The probation report stated that the Appellant had been the full-time primary carer for two children, received carer's allowance and disability benefit, lived in council accommodation and had some history of Children's Social Services involvement; it reported that, since custody commenced, an adult sibling had taken over care and that wider family support existed.
The court applied the three-part Article 8/Petherick framework (interference with family life; lawfulness/legitimate aim; proportionality). It accepted that interference and legitimate aim were present but focused on proportionality. The court concluded that:
- The case was not on the cusp of custody; the seriousness of the offending plainly justified immediate custody in the view reasonably open to the sentencing judge.
- Although custody had adverse effects on vulnerable family members, the additional material did not establish consequences so drastic as to make suspension the only reasonable outcome: there was evidence of family arrangements (an older daughter and wider family support), no suggestion of homelessness or destitution for the children, and the probation report's predicted harms were regarded as somewhat generic and speculative.
- The sentencing judge had already given substantial mitigation for family circumstances by markedly reducing the sentence from the category starting point; the 12-month sentence reflected that reduction and would result, in practical terms, in release after a shorter period (the judge noted likely release after about 21 weeks or less).
- Medical material supplied on appeal described health conditions from which the Appellant suffered, but these were not of such severity (no terminal illness) as to require exceptional release; appropriate treatment in custody was expected and the Appellant was likely to enter home detention curfew on release in the short term.
On the restraining-order challenge, the court considered the Appellant's submission that a 100-metre radius restriction is impractical. The court explained that radius restrictions are commonplace and serve to prevent an offender from loitering near a victim's home; it concluded that the 100-metre term was not unclear or impractical and that the proposed alternative would not offer equivalent protection. The court therefore rejected the proposed amendment.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.
Implications and direct effects:
- The Appellant's sentence of 12 months' imprisonment stands (with the consequence that, in practice, the Appellant will be released after the custodial period set by the relevant prison release rules and is likely to be eligible for home detention curfew in the near future).
- The restraining orders remain in force for five years, including the prohibition on approaching, contacting, or attempting to contact either victim and the 100-metre radius prohibition around any address at which the Appellant knows or suspects a victim to be living.
- The court emphasised that no error was identified in the sentencing judge's approach that would justify substituting suspension for immediate custody: the judge's conclusion was within the range of proper judicial responses given the seriousness, planning and the Appellant's role as ringleader.
- The decision does not purport to establish a new principle of law; it applies existing authorities on caring responsibilities, Article 8 considerations and appellate review of sentencing (Petherick, Carla Foster, Clayton Atkinson) to the facts before the court.