Summary of Judgment — Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty at a plea and trial preparation hearing on 21 September 2023 to two offences on an indictment: criminal damage (s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971) and assault by beating (s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988), and not guilty to further counts including intentional strangulation (s.75A(1) Serious Crime Act 2015). He was subsequently re‑arraigned and pleaded guilty to the strangulation offence during a trial listed in July 2025, with one assault count ordered to lie on the file.

Separately, on 6 November 2023 at the Magistrates' Court the Appellant indicated a guilty plea to possession of a Class A drug with intent to supply (methylamphetamine) and was committed for sentence. Additional matters were charged on a second indictment, including possession with intent to supply Class B (cannabis), driving whilst disqualified, dangerous driving, and simple possession of Class B. Further counts (including errors) were added, corrected and re‑pleaded in April 2024. The Appellant also pleaded guilty to several matters in April 2024 at the Magistrates' Court, which were committed for sentence to the Crown Court under different references.

The sentencing hearing was held on 18 September 2025 in the Crown Court before Judge Mooney. The judge adopted a thematic approach, identifying lead offences in three themes (domestic violence, drugs, driving), sentenced lead offences, treated associated offences as aggravating features or imposed no separate penalty, and aggregated by running lead sentences consecutively to reach an overall term of 80 months' imprisonment. The Appellant appealed by leave of a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether insufficient weight was given to the Appellant's personal mitigation and progress while on remand, rendering the sentence manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the starting point of seven years' imprisonment for the lead drugs offence (after trial) was too high for the Appellant's role and offending.
3. Whether the judge failed adequately to apply the principle of totality, producing an overall sentence that was excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Insufficient credit/discount was given for the Appellant's personal mitigation (including childhood exposure to drugs, long‑term addiction, loss and estrangement, completion of rehabilitative courses while on remand, and positive work in custody), and for progress made while on remand.
• The judge's starting point of seven years for the lead drug supply offence was excessive given the Appellant's addiction context and subject to downward adjustment short of the top of the category range.
• The reductions for totality were inadequate in practice: treating numerous non‑lead offences as aggravating features pushed individual sentences to the top of ranges so that any totality discount had no real effect.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeal reviewed the sentencing exercise and the judge's reasoning. The court noted:

• The sentencing judge explicitly adopted a thematic structure (domestic violence, drugs, driving) to identify lead offences, and he addressed mitigation, starting points and totality in that framework.
• The judge recorded that the Appellant had materially changed, expressly acknowledging and crediting rehabilitation efforts and remorse, and he applied appropriate guilty‑plea credit where applicable.
• For the intentional strangulation offence (category C2), the judge selected a starting point above the guideline minimum because the offence was committed in the presence of a child and criminal damage was an aggravating feature; he then reduced for remorse, mitigation and a 10% plea credit to reach 15 months' custody.
• For dangerous driving the judge used a 12‑month starting point, treated other driving matters as aggravating features but imposed no separate penalties for many driving offences, and applied 25% credit to arrive at nine months' custody.
• For the lead Class A drug supply offence the judge treated the Appellant as having a significant role in category 3 dealing, aggregated multiple supply offences and large quantities/values of drugs into a single assessment, declined to add a separate sentence for an earlier cannabis offence, adopted a seven‑year after‑trial starting point and applied 30% plea credit to reach four years and eight months' custody.
• The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentencing judge had taken account of the Appellant's mitigation and rehabilitation, used permissible guideline starting points, and made tangible allowances for totality (including imposing no separate penalties where appropriate and treating some offences as aggravating features rather than separate terms).
• The court found no error in principle in the imposition of consecutive sentences for the three distinct thematic lead offences and was not satisfied the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's challenge to sentence. The court upheld the overall custodial term reached by the sentencing judge and his approach to credit for plea, mitigation and totality.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant's sentence (total 80 months' imprisonment) and ancillary orders (including a driving disqualification of six years and six months and forfeiture/destruction orders in relation to drugs and paraphernalia) remain in force. The judgment did not purport to establish any new legal principle or precedent; it affirmed that the thematic structuring of sentences, within guideline ranges and with properly applied plea and mitigation credit and consideration of totality, was permissible in the circumstances of this case.