Hague, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant appealed, with leave, against a sentence imposed in the Crown Court on 13 May 2025. The sentence appealed was an extended sentence of 8½ years comprising a custodial term of 5½ years and an extended licence period of 3 years, imposed for an offence of false imprisonment (count 4) to which the Appellant pleaded guilty at trial in July 2024 and received approximately 10% credit for plea. There was a concurrent sentence of 18 months' imprisonment on count 2 (assault occasioning actual bodily harm), to which the Appellant pleaded guilty two days before changing his plea on count 4. Other counts were ordered to lie on the file.

On the facts, in January 2024 the Appellant, as leader and organiser, participated in the violent kidnapping of the Complainant in an operation to retrieve stolen illegal drugs. Threats were made against the Complainant's family and other persons. The Complainant was tricked to an address, chased, captured and placed into a waiting vehicle at about 2:18am on 24 January 2024. The vehicle was stopped by police on the motorway at about 3:30am; the Complainant's blood and the Appellant's DNA were found on a wheel brace in the vehicle; blood consistent with the Complainant's injuries was found in and on the vehicle; over £20,000 worth of cocaine was in the boot. The Appellant and others beat the Complainant, the Appellant hitting him with the wheel brace and repeatedly threatening to stab him. The vehicle was driven to a house where drugs were recovered. The Appellant initially denied the offences when arrested but later pleaded guilty.

The Appellant had an extensive criminal record spanning many years, including prior custodial sentences and convictions for violent offences. A pre-sentence report assessed him as using violence to achieve objectives, minimising his conduct, lacking remorse, posing a high risk of causing serious harm, and being eligible for custodial programmes; the report concluded risks could not be managed in the community without robust licence conditions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in his application of the principle of totality in sentencing.
2. Whether the judge took a manifestly excessive starting point for the custodial term.
3. Whether the judge failed to give any or sufficient credit for personal mitigation.
4. Whether it was wrong in law to impose an extended sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge erred in applying the totality principle.
• The judge adopted a manifestly excessive starting point for custody.
• Insufficient credit was given for personal mitigation.
• The extended sentence was wrongly imposed in law.
• Specifically, counsel submitted that there was an unjustified "leap" in categorisation and a risk of double counting the contemporaneous actual bodily harm offence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing exercise and the Appellant's grounds of appeal as follows:

• The judge's factual characterisation — describing the conduct as a "punishment and recovery operation" — and rejection of the Appellant's minimising account were supported by the material before the court.
• The judge identified the Appellant as the principal ringleader responsible for much of the violence, found no evidence of remorse, and relied on the Appellant's significant history of serious offending and indicators of ongoing risk.
• The judge considered the personal mitigation (a seriously ill child and supportive testimonials) but found them outweighed by negative behavioural indicators and the risk profile.
• The judge concluded the Appellant was a dangerous offender whose risks could not be managed by a standard determinate sentence; the court found no arguable error in that conclusion and therefore no legal error in imposing an extended sentence given the judge's determination that a custodial term of 5½ years (reduced from 6 years for plea) was appropriate.
• On guideline application: the false imprisonment offence was initially in category 3B (range 1–3 years, starting point 2 years) but, because the offence was planned, involved serious threatened and actual violence including with a weapon, and given the Appellant's role and previous convictions, the judge was entitled to raise the offence into the next category (range 2–7 years, starting point 5 years).
• The court rejected the submission that raising the category involved an unjustified leap or resulted in impermissible double counting with the actual bodily harm offence. The judge had placed the ABH offence in category 2A (range 36 weeks–2½ years, starting point 18 months) and imposed 18 months concurrent.
• The judge explained he would have passed 4 years for the false imprisonment alone and increased that by 2 years to 6 years to reflect the additional seriousness from the ABH; the court described this articulation as "a little muddled" but not demonstrably wrong in principle.
• The court concluded the custodial term of 6 years prior to plea discount, and the resulting imposed sentence (5½ years custody plus 3 years extended licence), fell within the appropriate guideline range and was not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The imposed extended sentence of 8½ years (custodial term 5½ years after credit for plea, extended licence 3 years) and the concurrent 18-month sentence on the assault count were upheld. The court found no arguable legal error in categorisation, in the imposition of an extended sentence, or in the overall length of the custodial term prior to plea credit.

Implications: The direct effect is that the sentence stands as imposed; the decision does not establish a novel precedent beyond its application of existing sentencing principles and the Sentencing Act 2020 (section 231) to the facts of this case.