Thornton, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion, delivered by Judge [Edis], concerns an application by Attorney [Solicitor] for leave to refer a sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the ground that it was unduly lenient. Leave was granted.

The Crown Court (the Crown Court) sentenced the Defendant on 30 September 2025 before Judge [Lawrie]. The Defendant pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing to three counts on an amended indictment and accepted the full facts. The court originally imposed, on each of the three counts, a community order for three years including 200 hours unpaid work, 20 days rehabilitation activity requirement and a programme requirement, together with a restraining order and surcharge. A form of "judicial oversight" was ordered outside the statutory scheme.

The factual matrix, as found in the judgment, involved a relationship beginning July 2024, repeated controlling and violent conduct by the Defendant against the Victim, including two incidents of intentional strangulation (counts 2 and 3) and persistent coercive or controlling behaviour (count 1). The Defendant was arrested in June 2025, released on bail with a non-contact condition which he breached by sending threatening voice messages, and was re-arrested in August 2025. A pre-sentence report assessed the Defendant as posing a high risk of serious harm to the Victim and recorded mitigation including youth, difficult upbringing and mental health issues. The Victim provided a personal statement describing significant psychological harm.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed by Judge [Lawrie] was unduly lenient such that this court should increase it under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
2. What categorical placement and resulting sentence are appropriate for (a) coercive and controlling behaviour and (b) the two offences of strangulation, and what credit for guilty plea should be applied.

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney [Solicitor]'s Arguments

• The offending was too serious to permit a non-custodial disposal; only immediate imprisonment was appropriate.
• The sentence imposed was outside the available range and therefore unduly lenient.

Attorney [Jenkins]'s Arguments

• Repeated the mitigation and submissions made to the sentencing judge, including the Defendant's youth, limited record and prospects of rehabilitation.
• Relied on matters arising from the judicial oversight hearing to support the rehabilitative package and to resist immediate custody.
• Contended for the level of credit and the approach adopted at sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

1. The court reviewed the factual findings and sentencing exercise undertaken by Judge [Lawrie], including the legal framework and applicable Sentencing Council guidelines for coercive and controlling behaviour and for strangulation, and overarching domestic abuse and guilty-plea guidelines.

2. The court accepted the prosecution's proposed categorizations for sentencing: count 1 as category A1 coercive and controlling behaviour (persistent conduct intended to maximise fear or distress) and counts 2 and 3 as category A2 strangulation (sustained strangulation entailing risk of death). The court noted the severity of the strangulation incidents, including loss of consciousness and vomiting.

3. The court considered the sentencing starting points identified in the guidelines (two and a half years' custody for each relevant starting point) and concluded that the combined offending inevitably required an immediate custodial sentence rather than the community disposals imposed by Judge [Lawrie].

4. The court weighed mitigation: the Defendant's youth, limited criminal history, traumatic upbringing, learning difficulties and expressed remorse and engagement with rehabilitation. The court also took into account the judicial oversight hearing which recorded "excellent" progress, noting it as supportive of rehabilitative prospects but not sufficient to avoid custody given the seriousness of the offences.

5. On credit for guilty plea, the court observed the absence of a Better Case Management Form from the magistrates' hearing and the resulting evidential gap about what occurred at that stage. The court accepted the Solicitor General's point that 30% credit was arguably generous under the guideline but exercised its discretion to allow a somewhat greater discount than the guideline strictly mandates.

6. Balancing aggravation and mitigation, the court determined appropriate starting sentences of four years' custody on each count, then applied an approximate 30% reduction for plea credit, resulting in concurrent terms of 34 months' imprisonment on each count.

7. The court quashed the community sentences previously imposed and substituted concurrent custodial sentences of 34 months for each of the three counts. It left other ancillary orders undisturbed. The court directed surrender to custody by a specified time and stated that the sentence commences on surrender.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The reference under section 36 was allowed. The community orders imposed by Judge [Lawrie] were quashed and replaced by concurrent custodial sentences of 34 months' imprisonment on each of the three counts.

Implications:

• The direct effect is immediate custody for the Defendant with the operational directions for surrender and commencement of sentence set out by the court.
• Other orders made by the sentencing judge (restraining order and surcharge) remain in force.
• The court did not purport to establish a new legal precedent; it applied the relevant sentencing guidelines to the facts of this case and exercised appellate discretion on plea credit and categorisation.