Munro, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence following leave granted by a single judge. On 24 July 2025, at The Crown Court, the Appellant changed his plea to guilty to three offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (counts 2, 3 and 4). Two other counts (controlling or coercive behaviour; making threatening communications) were ordered to lie on the file. On 19 September 2025 the Appellant was sentenced to a total of 45 months' imprisonment: 15 months for count 2, 10 months for count 3 and 20 months for count 4, with those sentences ordered to run consecutively.

The factual basis was a relationship beginning in 2017 between the Appellant and the Complainant that became abusive over time, with three specified assaults occurring between 2019 and 2023 causing physical injury and psychological harm to the Complainant and impact on children in the household. The Appellant had an extensive previous record. The Appellant appealed his sentence, challenging categorisation and overall length.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the overall sentence of 45 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the judge erred in categorising counts 3 and 4 as category B1 (rather than B2) under the relevant Sentencing Council guideline.
3. Whether the Probation Service risk assessment materially disadvantaged the Appellant by relying on allegations not to be sentenced.
4. Whether the judge failed to reduce the sentence to account for mitigation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The overall sentence of 45 months was manifestly excessive.
• The judge erred in categorising counts 3 and 4 as category B1 harms; they should have been category B2 given the limited physical injuries (bruising/black eye and no formal diagnosis of nerve damage).
• The judge wrongly increased the notional sentence for count 4 above the guideline starting point by six months given the limited aggravating features.
• The Appellant was disadvantaged by a Probation Service risk assessment that appeared to rely on allegations not to be sentenced.
• The judge did not meaningfully reduce sentences to reflect mitigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the sentencing judge's categorisation and application of the Sentencing Council guideline, the assessment of aggravating and mitigating features, and application of the totality principle and guilty-plea credit. The court accepted the sentencing judge's view that each assault formed part of a cumulative course of domestic abuse with significant impact on the Complainant and the children, and that impact was properly taken into account when assessing harm for categorisation purposes. The court held the judge was entitled to treat counts 3 and 4 as category B1 given the cumulative psychological and physical impact, notwithstanding that the physical injury in some counts was less severe.

The court rejected the submission that the Probation Service assessment had unfairly disadvantaged the Appellant, noting the judge was entitled to make his own assessment of risk. The court also rejected the suggestion that the judge failed to reduce sentences for mitigation, observing the judge had expressly taken mitigation into account and had reduced notional sentences for totality and for the guilty pleas where appropriate.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The sentence of 45 months' imprisonment (15 months on count 2, 10 months on count 3 and 20 months on count 4, consecutive) stands. The decision upholds the sentencing judge's categorisation of harm, assessment of aggravating and mitigating features, application of the totality principle and allowance for guilty-plea credit. The opinion does not establish a new legal precedent beyond affirming the correct application of the guideline to the facts of this case.