Summary of Opinion by Judge Cavanagh

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence brought with leave of the single judge. The Appellant was sentenced on 30 June 2025 at The Court for three offences committed on 18 July 2022: two offences of assault on an emergency worker and one offence of racially aggravated intentional harassment, alarm and distress contrary to section 31(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988. The Appellant had pleaded guilty to these offences at the start of his trial.

The judge imposed 15 months' imprisonment for the first assault on an emergency worker, 12 months' imprisonment for the second assault on an emergency worker, and 12 months' imprisonment for the racially aggravated harassment offence; these sentences were concurrent. On the same occasion the Appellant received a consecutive sentence of 3 months' imprisonment for a separate harassment without violence offence committed on 30 October 2024, and admitted an offence of failure to surrender for which no separate penalty was imposed.

The appeal relates only to the sentences imposed for the offences committed on 18 July 2022. By the time of the appeal hearing the Appellant had been released from custody, having served a substantial part of the sentences on remand prior to sentencing. The appeal was heard with representation by Attorney Kimsey, who also represented the Appellant at sentence.

Facts found by the sentencing judge: police were called to the Appellant's home in The City on 18 July 2022 due to erratic and drunken behaviour reported by his children. Officer A attempted to persuade the Appellant to leave; the Appellant shouted, lifted a dumbbell which was dropped causing a minor bruise to Officer A's elbow, attempted to punch Officer A while restrained and handcuffed, and grabbed and squeezed the wrist of Officer B. The Appellant threatened to "fucking break that", made further attempts to punch Officer A and to bite both officers. The prosecution accepted a basis of plea that the Appellant had no intention to use the dumbbell as a weapon.

At The Police Station the Appellant racially abused a black officer, Officer C, using a racial slur twice. None of the officers required medical attention. Each provided a victim impact statement: Officer A said he was placed in real fear for his safety; Officer B said she felt alarmed and distressed and was left emotionally and physically exhausted; Officer C said the racial abuse left him upset and made him question his role in The Police.

The Appellant was aged 42 in July 2022 and had thirteen previous convictions, seven for offences against the person, including convictions in March 2018 (battery against his son), July 2021 (4 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 2 years for battery), and March 2022 (assault on his daughter and possession of an offensive weapon; sentence of 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years). The March 2022 suspended sentence was operational at the time of the July 2022 offences. The Appellant committed further offences after July 2022, including offences committed on 19 January 2023 for which he was sentenced to 26 weeks' imprisonment on 23 January 2023.

The Appellant was remanded following the October 2024 threatening text and remained in custody for just under eight months until sentencing on 30 June 2025. The sentencing judge had two pre-sentence reports, the addendum dated 10 June 2025 recording no remorse, lack of responsibility, limited insight, ongoing alcohol problems, and a high risk of serious harm to family members. The Appellant intended to reconcile with his wife, who suffers serious kidney disease and expressed hope he would assist her during treatment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 15 months' imprisonment imposed for the offences of 18 July 2022 was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge's failure to state in open court what the sentence would have been without the uplift for assault on an emergency worker invalidated the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant (through Attorney Kimsey) submitted that the 15 months' sentence for the offences committed on 18 July 2022 was manifestly excessive.
• At sentencing the defence contended that the harm caused by each assault fell within harm category 3 (no or very low-level physical harm and/or distress) under the assault guideline.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution and defence agreed culpability category A (prolonged and persistent assault). The prosecution contended Officer A's assault fell in harm category 1 and Officer B's assault in harm category 2; the judge placed both in harm category 2, a decision the Appellant did not invite the court to disturb on appeal.
• For the racially aggravated harassment the Crown placed culpability in the lowest category and sought harm category 1 (very significant distress/psychological harm); the defence argued harm category 3. The judge accepted the defence position yielding a starting point in band B5 with a range from a discharge to a low-level community order.
• The prosecution advanced aggravating features to justify uplifted sentences, including the assaults being on emergency workers, multiple offences, previous convictions, breach of a suspended sentence, intoxication, lack of remorse and risk of harm to family.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the factual findings and the application of sentencing guidelines. Key points of analysis were:

• Culpability and harm: The judge placed the assaults in culpability category A (prolonged and persistent assault) and harm category 2 for both assaults; the appellate court held the judge was entitled to place the offending in category A2.
• Sentencing guideline application: For a basic A2 assault the starting point would have been a medium-level community order (range up to 16 weeks' custody). The assault-on-emergency-worker aggravation requires an uplift that may considerably exceed the basic range; for category A2 the guideline contemplates a significantly more onerous penalty or a more severe type of sentence.
• Racially aggravated harassment: The judge accepted the defence submission on harm for that offence, resulting in a starting point of band B5 (range from discharge to low-level community order), although the sentencing remarks contained an incorrect reference to band C5; the court identified the correct starting band as B5 based on the judge's reasoning.
• Aggravating factors: The judge identified multiple aggravating factors to justify significant uplift — three separate offences on 18 July 2022; prior convictions for offences against the person; the fact the July 2022 offences were committed during the operational period of a suspended sentence; intoxication; and the Appellant's lack of remorse and reported high risk of serious harm to family members.
• Plea credit and concurrency: The judge allowed 10% credit for the guilty pleas entered on the day of trial. The sentences for the three July 2022 offences were made concurrent. The judge did not make a restraining order because reconciliation with the Appellant's wife was apparently likely. The sentencing judge did not explicitly state in open court what the sentence would have been without the emergency-worker uplift, but the appellate court held that omission did not invalidate the sentence.
• Proportionality and legislative context: The court emphasized that assaulting an emergency worker is a more serious offence in law, reflected by a higher statutory maximum (2 years) than for common assault (6 months). The court considered that the combination of the statutory seriousness of such assaults and the several aggravating features justified a significant uplift from the basic assault range in all the circumstances.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The appellate court dismissed the Appellant's challenge and concluded that, although the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive in light of the assault-on-emergency-worker aggravation, the combined criminality of three offences, the racially aggravated offence against an officer, the operational suspended sentence, intoxication, relevant prior convictions, and the Appellant's lack of remorse and risk to family.

Implications: The direct effect is that the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge (15 months and concurrent 12-month sentences for the July 2022 offences, and the separate consecutive 3-month sentence for the October 2024 offence) stand. The court noted an omission in the sentencing remarks (failure to state the sentence without the emergency-worker uplift), but held that omission did not invalidate the sentence. The opinion does not purport to set new precedent beyond the application of existing sentencing guidelines and statutory distinctions noted above.