Coates, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted after a trial on 29 November 2024 of two counts of damaging property contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act and was sentenced on 10 March 2025 by the Judge (Recorder) to 4 years and 16 weeks' imprisonment. The Appellant had lived at [Number] Main Street in The City. The neighbouring occupiers, referred to in the opinion as the Complainants (Complainant A and Complainant B), lived next door at [Number] Main Street (Complainants' residence); the houses are semi-detached and joined.

There had been a long-standing boundary dispute that led to civil proceedings and to a court order dated 15 September 2022. The opinion records that the court did not provide a copy of that order to the appellate court and the judges "surmise" it contained prohibitions or restrictions on the Appellant's conduct. The Complainants had previously obtained a civil judgment awarding damages and costs against the Appellant, and on 14 March 2024 the High Court made a charging order over the Appellant's house, ordered its sale by 13 June 2024 and vested an interest in the property in the Complainants' favour; solicitors for the Complainants were to be responsible for the sale.

On 17 April 2024 the Complainants applied for contempt of court alleging multiple breaches of the September 2022 order. In the days leading up to 10 June 2024 the Appellant deliberately damaged his own house, removing floors and a staircase, so as to reduce the funds available on sale. On 10 June 2024 the Appellant accessed the roof of his property via a hole he had made, smashed tiles with a hammer and hurled them to the ground; the Appellant then crossed to the Complainants' roof and caused significant damage there. Police attended the scene. The Appellant was charged with two counts of criminal damage (to his own house and to the Complainants' house) and with harassment; he was convicted of the two criminal damage counts and acquitted of the harassment counts.

An estate agent had estimated the undamaged market value of the Appellant's house to be up to £450,000 and in its damaged state to be marketed for between £200,000 and £300,000. The opinion records various repair estimates for the Complainants' property producing totals around £25,000, while defence counsel suggested a figure of £37,000 for the damage.

Separately, a civil judge found at the contempt hearing that the Appellant had committed contempt in relation to the damage to the Complainants' roof and sentenced the Appellant under civil contempt principles, applying guidance in Lovett v Wigan CC. The civil sentencing resulted in a custodial element which, after adjustment for totality, amounted effectively to 10 weeks in relation to the damage to the Complainants' roof. In the criminal proceedings the Judge (Recorder) delivered detailed sentencing remarks addressing how to avoid double counting between the civil contempt sentence and the criminal sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the criminal sentence of 4 years and 16 weeks' imprisonment for two counts of criminal damage was manifestly excessive.
2. How a criminal court should take account of an earlier civil contempt sentence arising from the same conduct so as to avoid double punishment or manifest discrepancy, in light of guidance such as that in Lomas v Parle.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence imposed by the Judge (Recorder) was manifestly excessive and went outside the applicable Sentencing Council Guidelines.
• The Recorder failed adequately to take into account that the Appellant was the main daytime carer for his adult severely autistic son.
• Although defence counsel (Attorney Body) accepted the offending fell within category 1A and that there were aggravating features warranting a sentence above the guideline starting point, counsel submitted the sentence nonetheless exceeded what was justifiable given the guideline ranges and the circumstances.
• It was submitted that the damage, while significant, was not exceptional and the Recorder’s starting point and adjustments produced an unduly severe final sentence.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution's or the Complainants' submissions on sentence beyond the factual material and the civil proceedings already described.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate panel, led by Judge Thornton, considered whether the criminal sentence was manifestly excessive. The court undertook the following analysis (expressed in the opinion):

• Recognition of complexity: The court observed that sentencing in the present case was a "genuinely difficult" exercise because of the overlap between the civil contempt sentence and the criminal sentencing exercise. The Recorder's sentencing remarks were described as careful and detailed.
• Review of evidence: The appellate court reviewed drone footage of the damage to both roofs and police body-worn camera footage of the Appellant's actions, and accepted the Recorder was entitled to categorise both counts as category 1A for culpability and harm under the Sentencing Council Guidelines.
• Lead offence and planning: The court agreed with the Recorder that the damage to the Appellant's own house was the lead offence; that damage involved a high degree of planning carried out over several days and was motivated by revenge to frustrate the civil sale, causing serious damage.
• Aggravating factors: The Recorder was entitled to elevate the starting point because of multiplicity of culpability and harm factors. He was also entitled to treat as a serious aggravating factor the Appellant's deliberate attempt to frustrate the integrity of the civil justice system and to recognise that the offending occurred where the Complainants were entitled to feel safe and that one Complainant was relatively vulnerable by reason of age.
• Recklessness and lack of mitigation: The Recorder was entitled to conclude the Appellant had been reckless as to the risk to others (for example, throwing tiles in proximity to Complainant B) and that there was little mitigation: the Appellant was unrepentant and there was limited evidence he was the primary carer for his adult autistic son.
• Guideline application and starting points: The Recorder identified category 1A with multiple aggravating features and, given multiplicity across two counts, elevated the sentencing starting point. The opinion notes that for a single category 1A offence the guideline starting point is 1 year 6 months with a range up to 4 years, but that multiplicity and the seriousness here justified a higher effective starting point for the aggregate offending.
• Discount for civil sentence: The Recorder expressly avoided treating the breach of the civil order itself as an aggravating factor (to prevent double punishment) but was entitled to take account of the Appellant's deliberate attack on the civil justice system as an aggravator. The Recorder reached an aggregate sentence equivalent to 5 years before applying an 8-month reduction to reflect the prior civil sentence; he described that reduction as generous. The civil sentence in relation to the Complainants' roof had been 3 months reduced to 10 weeks overall.
• Outcome judged against manifest excess test: The appellate court assessed the outcome-focused question of whether the final sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. Given the multiplicity of serious culpability and harm factors on two counts, the court concluded the Recorder was not outside the available sentencing range and that the discount applied for the civil sentence was not inadequate.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The appellate court held that it was not persuaded the sentence of 4 years and 16 weeks' imprisonment was manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Implications: The direct effect is that the sentence imposed by the Judge (Recorder) stands. The court emphasised that the sentencing exercise had been carefully conducted, including consideration of how to reflect an earlier civil contempt sentence so as to avoid double punishment. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond applying and affirming the applicability of existing guidance (including Lomas v Parle) on managing concurrent civil and criminal sentencing considerations; the court recorded no broader change in law.