Factual and Procedural Background
This is an application by the Solicitor General 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 by Judge Edis.
The underlying sentences were imposed on 30 September 2025 at the Crown Court in The City by Judge Lawrie. The Defendant pleaded guilty at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing to three counts: (1) controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship (s.76 Serious Crime Act 2015) and (2) and (3) two separate incidents of intentional strangulation (s.75A Serious Crime Act 2015). Judge Lawrie sentenced the Defendant to concurrent community orders of three years on each count, with 200 hours unpaid work, 20 days rehabilitation activity requirement, a programme requirement and a judicial oversight direction (separate from the section 217 Sentencing Act 2020 scheme). The judge also imposed the appropriate surcharge and a restraining order.
Following that sentence the Solicitor General sought referral on the basis that the sentence was unduly lenient.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence imposed by Judge Lawrie was unduly lenient and should be increased under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
- Appropriate categorisation and starting points under the Sentencing Council guidelines for (a) controlling or coercive behaviour and (b) strangulation in the light of the facts found.
- The appropriate level of credit for guilty pleas given the procedural history in the magistrates' court and consequent effect on any substituted custodial sentence.
Arguments of the Parties
Solicitor General's Arguments
- The offending was too serious to permit any non-custodial outcome; an immediate custodial sentence was required.
- The community sentences imposed were outside the range available to the sentencing judge for these offences.
Defence (Attorney Jenkins)'s Arguments
- Repeat of submissions made to Judge Lawrie, emphasising the Defendant's youth, limited record, difficult upbringing, learning difficulties and prospects for rehabilitation.
- Reliance on the rehabilitative package, including the judicial oversight hearing (which Judge Lawrie had recorded as showing "excellent" progress), to justify a non-custodial disposal.
- Contended that the prosecution's categorisation and harm assessments were optimistic but accepted some concessions in the Crown Court.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court set out the factual findings relied on by the Crown Court: a pattern of controlling and violent behaviour during a relationship, including repeated assaults and two occasions of sustained strangulation causing vomiting and, on one occasion, loss of consciousness. The Defendant had pleaded guilty to the three counts after preparatory discussions; the pre-sentence report recorded minimising comments by the Defendant and assessed a high risk of serious harm to the Victim.
Judge Lawrie's approach at sentence was to treat the starting points under the applicable Sentencing Council guidelines as producing custodial sentences that could not be suspended, but to prefer rehabilitation for a young Defendant with limited record. Judge Lawrie applied 30% credit for guilty pleas and imposed community orders with judicial oversight instead of immediate custody.
Judge Edis (with the court) accepted the sentencing judge's laudable rehabilitative intent but concluded that the offending was too serious for a non-custodial disposal. The court agreed with the prosecution's categorisation: Count 1 as category A1 controlling/coercive behaviour and Counts 2 and 3 as category A2 (strangulation involving persistent strangulation and a risk of death). The court emphasised the seriousness of the strangulation incidents (one causing loss of consciousness) and the cumulative effect of repeated violence and control on the Victim.
Balancing mitigation (youth, limited record, difficult upbringing and some learning difficulties) against the gravity of the offending, the court determined that immediate custody was required but that account should be taken of mitigation by moderating the starting point. The court identified a starting point of four years' custody for each count, and considered the credit for guilty pleas. Noting the absence of a Better Case Management Form from the magistrates' court (and the resulting uncertainty about the plea stage), the court accepted the Solicitor General's point that 30% was generous compared to the guideline indication of 25%, but exercised its discretion to allow approximately 30% credit.
Applying that discount to four-year starting points produced concurrent terms of 34 months' imprisonment on each count. The court quashed the community orders and substituted the custodial sentences. Other ancillary orders made by Judge Lawrie (surcharge, restraining order, and ancillary requirements other than sentence) were left intact. The court also took into account, but did not regard as determinative, the early judicial oversight hearing recording "excellent" progress under the community requirements.
Holding and Implications
The court substituted immediate custodial sentences of 34 months' imprisonment (to run concurrently) for each of the three counts.
Consequences: the community orders imposed by Judge Lawrie were quashed and replaced by the concurrent custodial terms of 34 months on each count. Other orders made by Judge Lawrie (surcharge and restraining order) were unaffected and remain in force. The Defendant was ordered to surrender to the specified custody suite at The Business Park, The City, by 2:30 pm on the day directed by the court; the custodial term is to commence on surrender.