Anonymized Summary of Court of Appeal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal was heard by Judge [Spencer] with leave from a single judge. The Appellant appealed against an extended sentence imposed by Judge [Whitehead] in the Crown Court at The City on 24 December 2024. The sentence challenged comprised an eight-year extended sentence made up of a five-year custodial term and a three-year extended period on licence, imposed for an offence of stalking causing serious alarm or distress contrary to section 4A(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The factual material set out a campaign of harassment by the Appellant against the Complainant from 2019 to November 2022. The offending included: an unsolicited note about a parcel; removal of window latches; the Appellant being seen lurking in the Complainant's garden; attempts to undo window locks; multiple observed incidents of the Appellant at or near the Complainant's windows; spray-painting CCTV and a doorbell camera; placement of a note near a family member's address; and two separate CCTV encounters on 22 November 2022 showing the Appellant at the property and later at the front gate wearing distinctive clothing and gloves and interfering with lighting and cameras.

The Appellant was on licence for earlier similar offending at the start of the period. CCTV and other evidence (including matching call-data and items recovered from the Appellant's shed) linked the Appellant to the incidents. The Appellant initially made no reply in interview. A handwritten note connected to one incident was found to have strong evidential support for being written by the Appellant.

Procedurally: the Appellant first appeared before the Magistrates' Court on 3 April 2024. The Better Case Management (BCM) form indicated the matter would be admitted but noted concerns over the Appellant's fitness to plead, leading to a psychiatric report from Attorney [Stoddart] dated 23 May 2024 which concluded the Appellant was fit to plead. The Appellant was arraigned and pleaded guilty on 14 May 2024. The sentencing hearing before Judge [Whitehead] took place on 24 December 2024.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to award the Appellant the full one-third (33.3%) reduction in sentence for pleading guilty, as set out in the guideline Reduction in Sentence for Guilty Plea, given that the plea was indicated at the first applicable stage subject to confirmation of fitness to plead.
2. Whether the circumstances that led to delay in arraignment (the psychiatric assessment of fitness to plead) fall within the guideline exception permitting a one-third reduction despite a later formal plea.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney [Hegarty])

• The Appellant should have been given full credit of one-third under the guideline Reduction in Sentence for Guilty Plea because the plea was indicated at the first stage of proceedings, subject to confirmation of fitness to plead.
• Sections D1 and F of the guideline were relied upon. D1 provides that where a guilty plea is indicated at the first stage of proceedings a one-third reduction should be made, subject to exceptions in section F. Section F (F1) allows a one-third reduction where particular circumstances significantly reduced the defendant's ability to understand allegations or made it unreasonable to expect an earlier plea.
• The Appellant had, in fact, indicated a guilty plea on the Better Case Management form but conditioned this on confirmation that he was fit to plead. Given the need for a psychiatric report, it was not reasonable to expect an earlier unconditioned plea.
• Attorney [Hegarty] relied on this court's decision in Precedent A [2022] EWCA Crim 726 (reported in the opinion as R v Nolan) which held that where mental health and fitness to plead are material, obtaining a psychiatric report and waiting for its conclusion can justify treating the plea as given at the first stage for the purposes of full credit.

Prosecution's Arguments

• At sentencing, prosecuting counsel informed the court that the Appellant had pleaded guilty 13 days after the matter was first before the Crown Court and that the initial delay in arraignment was on account of the need to investigate fitness to plead.
• At the sentencing hearing prosecuting counsel submitted that there had been limited delay and that the Appellant should be given credit "in accordance with a plea at PTPH" (plea at the first PTPH hearing), which the Recorder treated as a partial credit rather than the full one-third.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the factual background, the procedural history recorded on the Better Case Management form, and the events in the sentencing judge's oral sentencing remarks. It noted these key points:

• The BCM form recorded that the Appellant would admit the matter but that his fitness to plead required investigation.
• Attorney [Stoddart]'s psychiatric report (23 May 2024) concluded the Appellant was fit to plead; following receipt of that report the Appellant was arraigned and pleaded guilty on 14 May 2024.
• The sentencing judge (Judge [Whitehead]) assessed culpability as high and harm in the top category, adopting a starting point of five years' custody (with a range of 3½ to 8 years). The judge considered that a sentence following a trial would have been seven years and, after credit for plea, imposed a custodial term of five years — a 24-month reduction that equated roughly to 25% credit rather than a one-third reduction.

The appeal focused on whether the Appellant should have received the full one-third reduction under the Reduction in Sentence for Guilty Plea guideline. The court examined D1 (one-third reduction where a guilty plea is indicated at the first stage) and F1 (exception where particular circumstances significantly reduced the Defendant's ability to understand the allegations or otherwise made it unreasonable to expect an earlier plea). The court observed that the Appellant had indicated a guilty plea on the BCM form, but that indication had been expressed subject to confirmation of fitness to plead.

The court drew on Precedent A [2022] EWCA Crim 726 where this court had accepted that where mental ill-health and fitness to plead are relevant, obtaining an independent psychiatric report and awaiting its conclusion justified treating a plea as given at the first applicable stage for the purposes of the guideline. Applying that reasoning here, the court concluded it was unreasonable to expect the Appellant to indicate a plea before Attorney [Stoddart] had advised that he was fit to plead. Neither the Appellant's solicitors nor counsel could properly advise the Appellant before that report was available; the Appellant pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity after the report was received.

Given those findings, the court held that the Appellant was entitled to the full one-third reduction. The court considered the numerical effect of that credit on the custodial element and concluded that the sentence as imposed by the Recorder did not give full one-third credit.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed in Part.

Holding: The court quashed the custodial element of the sentence of five years (60 months) and substituted a custodial term of 56 months. To this limited extent the appeal was allowed.

Implications:

• Direct effect: the Appellant's custodial term was reduced from 60 months to 56 months. The opinion does not record any alteration to the three-year extended licence period or to the indefinite restraining order and ancillary orders; the adjustment was confined to the custodial element.
• Legal principle: the decision affirms that, where a defendant indicates a plea at the first appropriate stage subject to confirmation of fitness to plead, and a psychiatric report is reasonably required and obtained, section F1 of the guilty plea guideline can apply so that a one-third reduction remains appropriate. The court relied on existing authority (Precedent A [2022] EWCA Crim 726) and applied that reasoning to the facts of this case.
• No broader novel precedent was created by this single decision; the court applied established guideline principles and existing authority to the particular factual and procedural matrix before it.

All names, places and identifying details in this summary have been anonymized and are presented in accordance with the directive to avoid personally identifiable information. The summary is restricted to material expressly contained in the provided opinion.