Andrews, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application by Attorney [AG], under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for leave to refer a sentence as unduly lenient. The case was tried in the Crown Court at The City, listed for trial on 18 August 2025 before Judge [Recorder1]. The Defendant (aged 37) entered guilty pleas on that date to four counts on the indictment (counts 1, 2, 8 and 9); counts 3–7 were ordered to lie on the file. Sentencing was conducted by Judge [Recorder2] on 3 October 2025.

The counts to which pleas were entered were: count 1 — controlling or coercive behaviour (Serious Crime Act 2015); count 2 — inflicting grievous bodily harm (section 20, Offences against the Person Act 1861); count 8 — assault occasioning actual bodily harm (section 47, 1861 Act); and count 9 — criminal damage (Criminal Damage Act 1971). The Recorder imposed two years' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with unpaid work (200 hours), a rehabilitation activity requirement (10 days) and an accredited programme (recorded as 26 days after correction). Sentences for counts 2 and 8 were ordered to run concurrently; no separate penalty was imposed for count 9.

The conduct spanned a relationship of about six years (1 April 2018 to 3 November 2022) between the Defendant and the victim. The prosecution file included an Achieving Best Evidence interview, a Victim Personal Statement, multiple photographs of injuries and messages evidencing abusive conduct. Count 2 related to an incident on 17 April 2019 in which the victim sustained a fractured wrist requiring two orthopaedic operations and leaving lifelong weakness. Counts 8 and 9 related to events on 2–3 November 2022 in which the victim was pushed into a banister (breaking spindles) and into a wall, sustaining a head injury; the victim called the police and the Defendant was later arrested. A written basis of plea was prepared and accepted by the prosecution, describing the offending in reduced terms (limited verbal abuse, some pushing and shoving, and a version of force said to be excessive in a self‑defence context).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed were unduly lenient such that leave should be granted under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the sentences increased.
2. Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the imposition guideline in deciding that the custodial sentence could be suspended.

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney [AG]'s Arguments

• Count 1 should be treated as category A2 (persistent conduct, serious alarm/distress) with a starting point of 12 months' custody.
• Count 2 should be culpability category B and harm category 3, starting point 12 months, increased for domestic context to at least 18 months.
• Count 8 should be culpability category B and harm category 1 (multiple injuries), suggesting an 18‑month starting point, increased for domestic context; a two‑year sentence pre‑credit would be justified for that count alone.
• After adjustments for totality, mitigation and plea reductions, a global sentence of at least three years' imprisonment was submitted as the minimum proper sentence.

Attorney [Defence]'s Arguments

• The Recorder applied the relevant guidelines correctly, was aware of all material factors, and any appellate intervention should be confined to cases of serious or manifest error of principle.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the procedural and evidential background, placing particular emphasis on the basis of plea accepted by the prosecution (which materially reduced the factual scope of the allegations) despite extensive recorded evidence and photographs that supported a more serious account. The appellate court expressed surprise and concern at the acceptance of that basis of plea but recorded that it had not conducted a full inquiry into the prosecutorial decision-making and would not unfairly criticise prosecuting counsel on the limited material before it.

The court reviewed the Recorder's approach to sentencing: the Recorder interrogated counsel to ensure clarity about the factual basis, considered the pre-sentence report (which assessed high risk of serious harm to the victim and recommended community‑based intervention), heard the Victim Personal Statement (which described repeated and escalating violence), and applied offence‑specific guidelines to classify the offences. The Recorder concluded that, had the case proceeded to trial on the full evidence, a total custodial sentence of 27 months would have been appropriate, reduced to two years to reflect the late guilty plea.

In relation to suspension, the Recorder applied the imposition guideline and identified three factors favouring suspension: a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community, the offender not presenting a high risk of reoffending or harm in practice, and strong personal mitigation. The appellate court concluded that, given the accepted factual basis of the pleas (which minimised conduct), it could not properly conclude that the Recorder's decision to suspend was irrational or a wrong exercise of principle.

Having considered the Attorney [AG]'s submissions on guideline categorisation and appropriate starting points, the court acknowledged that many judges might have imposed a significantly longer custodial term, but deemed it wrong at this stage to find the sentence unduly lenient because the prosecution had accepted the reduced factual basis. The court therefore granted leave to bring the reference (finding the application arguable) but declined to increase the sentences.

The court also ordered a correction to the sentencing record to show 26 days (not "sessions") of the accredited programme.

Holding and Implications

Core ruling: Leave to refer was granted, but the sentences imposed were not increased; the sentencing court's decision to impose two years' imprisonment suspended for two years is upheld.

Implications: The practical effect is that the original sentence (two years' custody, suspended for two years, with the specified requirements and concurrent ordering) remains in force subject to the recorded correction (26 days of the programme). The court declined to increase the sentence and did not purport to establish any new precedent; it recorded concern about the acceptance of the reduced basis of plea but limited its intervention on the basis of the material before it.