Jennings, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant was convicted on indictment of multiple offences arising from repeated domestic abuse over a prolonged period (2016–2025) involving his spouse (Victim (wife)) and three children (Victim (eldest son), Victim (daughter), Victim (younger son)). The offences included two counts of assault by beating, one count of intentional strangulation and one count of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. At first instance in the Crown Court at The City, the Recorder imposed concurrent custodial terms totalling 2 years' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, together with ancillary requirements and restraining orders. The Solicitor General obtained leave to refer the sentences as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed by the Crown Court was unduly lenient.
2. Whether the Recorder erred by failing to apply the Sentencing Council's Overarching Guideline on Totality and by not adjusting the lead sentence to reflect the overall criminality of the offences.
3. If the sentence was unduly lenient, what immediate custodial sentence should be substituted.

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney Holland (on behalf of the Solicitor General)

• Accepted categorisation of offences under the sentencing guidelines but criticised the Recorder's failure to address the principle of totality and to make an upward adjustment to the lead offence to reflect cumulative criminality.
• Submitted that the failure to make a totality adjustment rendered the overall sentence outside the range which a judge could reasonably consider appropriate.

Attorney Khan (on behalf of the Defendant)

• Accepted that the sentence was lenient but contended it was not unduly lenient.
• Relied on mitigation: remorse expressed in letters, time already spent in custody, difficult childhood and recent bereavement, positive character references, compliance with the suspended sentence order and the Recorder's view that supervision would best aid rehabilitation.
• Argued the Recorder was entitled to impose a suspended sentence given those mitigating and pragmatic considerations.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted the parties' agreed guideline categorizations: controlling/coercive behaviour as category A1 (starting point 2½ years), intentional strangulation as category B1 (starting point 2½ years), and assaults by beating as higher-level and lower-level community/custodial ranges respectively. The Court noted mitigation and the Recorder's consideration that the Defendant had already served time on remand and that supervision might better assist rehabilitation.

However, the Court identified error in the Recorder's approach to totality: the Recorder did not sufficiently adjust the lead sentence for controlling/coercive behaviour to reflect the Defendant's overall criminality, including distinct and serious offending against two children. The Court observed that the guideline on Totality requires the sentencing judge to "test the overall sentence against the requirement that the total sentence is just and proportionate to the offending as a whole." On that basis the Court concluded the notional approach adopted did not achieve a just and proportionate total sentence.

The Court determined that the minimum appropriate immediate custodial term for the lead offence to reflect overall criminality was 3½ years' imprisonment. The Court allowed limited credit for the Defendant's compliance with a stringent electronically monitored curfew (about four months' adherence) and reduced the custodial term by two months. The Court therefore quashed the suspended sentence order and substituted immediate concurrent custodial terms, producing a total immediate sentence of 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment.

Holding and Implications

REFERENCE SUCCEEDS

Holding: The Court held that the original sentence was unduly lenient and quashed it. The Court substituted immediate concurrent custodial terms as follows: Count 1 — 5 months; Count 2 — 4 months; Count 3 — 21 months; Count 4 (controlling/coercive behaviour) — 3 years and 4 months. Total immediate custody: 3 years and 4 months. Restraining orders previously imposed remain in force.

Implications: The immediate effect is to replace the suspended sentence with immediate imprisonment and to preserve the restraining orders. The Court applied established principles (including the Attorney General's Reference test) but did not purport to create new precedent beyond applying the Totality principle to the facts of this case. The Court also directed the Defendant to surrender to custody at the police station whose location was provided to the court by counsel.