Summary of Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted after trial of three counts of religiously aggravated criminal damage contrary to section 30(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and sentenced to three concurrent terms of 32 months' imprisonment. The convictions arose from spray-painted graffiti and the placement of pigs' heads outside three separate educational facilities used recently for religious worship in The City on 25 July 2024. The Appellant was present at each location when the damage occurred. Two co-defendants participated in the events: Co-defendant A recruited the Appellant, procured pigs' heads and attended the sites to commit the damage; Co-defendant B drove the parties between locations and was offered drugs as payment.

The Appellant was arrested; clothing and a jacket found at his address were linked to the offences by CCTV and forensic evidence. In interview the Appellant denied recollection and alleged the clothing had been planted.

Procedurally, the Appellant first appeared on information in the magistrates' court, was remanded and the justices declined jurisdiction, directing trial by jury. At Crown Court each of the three incidents appeared as separate counts on the indictment. The total cost of remedial works at all three sites was shown to be less than £5,000. The Appellant appealed against sentence by leave of the single judge; the appeal was heard and dismissed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the higher-value criminal damage guideline (for damage exceeding £5,000/where the basic offence carries a greater maximum) rather than the lower-value guideline (value not exceeding £5,000), producing an unduly high starting point.
2. Whether applying the higher guideline and then applying an uplift to mark the religiously aggravated element resulted in double counting of the same aggravating features.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Price)

• The judge should have applied the lower guideline for criminal damage of value not exceeding £5,000; applying the higher guideline produced an excessive starting point.
• The judge's use of the higher guideline and a further uplift for religious aggravation amounted to double counting; the court should have fixed sentence under the basic guideline before applying any uplift.

Respondent's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Oakley)

• The judge correctly applied the higher guideline and properly had regard to the lower guideline.
• The judge identified a correct starting point of 18 months within the higher guideline's category and range and then considered further features to reach the final sentence.
• The judge did not further increase the starting point in a way that double-counted features; after selecting the criminal damage sentence he properly applied an uplift to reflect the religious aggravation.
• Even if an error had been made in guideline selection, the overall sentence of 32 months was not manifestly excessive given the aggravating factors; motivation and harm, not merely repair cost, are the key features.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined which criminal damage guideline applied. It identified a procedural and statutory complexity: where only the aggravated offence (section 30) is charged, it may be impossible to determine what the basic offence's maximum penalty would have been because the basic offence was never separately charged or the s.22 procedure never engaged. The court analysed authorities (notably Alden and Gwynn) and textbook commentary to explain tensions in the law about whether a prior magistrates' valuation or the stage at which a count appears on the indictment limits Crown Court sentencing powers.

The court concluded that, on the facts of this case, no s.22 determination had been made that would cap sentencing powers and that the basic offence should be treated as an either-way offence (with a potential maximum of 10 years for purposes of guideline selection). Accordingly the higher-value criminal damage guideline was the appropriate starting point, although the court noted the judge's reasons were not necessarily identical to the court's reasoning.

Applying the higher guideline, the sentencing judge classified the basic offence as category A1 (high culpability and harm) with an 18-month starting point and a category range up to 4 years. The judge then applied an uplift to reflect the high level of religious aggravation, increasing the sentence to 39 months, before making reductions totalling 7 months (3 months for lack of relevant previous conviction and 4 months for a subordinate role) to reach 32 months.

The court analysed whether this process amounted to impermissible double counting. It found the judge had selected 18 months without increasing within the category range to reflect community impact or serious distress, leaving those considerations to be reflected in the uplift stage. The court therefore held there was no double counting. The court also observed that the judge's use of the Court of Appeal decision in Rezazadeh was an appropriate comparative check and that the sentence imposed here was materially lower than that upheld in Rezazadeh.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Outcome: The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The Appellant's sentence of three concurrent terms of 32 months' imprisonment stands.

Implications: The court held that where no magistrates' s.22 value determination has limited sentencing powers, the higher criminal damage guideline may properly apply to an indictment alleging only the aggravated form of criminal damage; the sentencer should, however, have regard to the lower-value guideline. The court found no error of double counting in the judge's approach. The opinion does not purport to create a novel legal rule beyond its application to the procedural and guideline issues in this case; no new binding precedent was announced.