Froom, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Crown Court at The City (Judge Patrick) sentenced the Appellant on 14 February 2025 after guilty pleas to multiple assaults and related offences. Sentences included: an extended determinate sentence of 5 years for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ADP), comprising 4 years custody and 1 year extended licence; concurrent terms of 4 months for three counts of assault by beating; activation in full of a suspended 16-week custodial sentence; revocation of a 3-year community order and concurrent sentences for related offences, producing an overall determinate custodial term of 16 weeks consecutive to the extended determinate sentence. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted by a Single Judge.

The material facts set out in the judgment describe two patterns of domestic violence. From January 2018 the Appellant was violent towards Victim A, who has significant health conditions. Incidents against Victim A included hair-pulling, slapping (May 2022), a repeated punching incident captured on CCTV that caused cuts and a bump (July 2022), forced entry and assault (August 2022), and dragging, further punching, kicking, and damage to sentimental property (September 2022). Those offences resulted in the community order imposed on 18 January 2023.

From about March 2023 the Appellant entered a relationship with Victim B and committed similar violence. He pleaded guilty to battery on 30 December (sentenced to a suspended 16-week sentence on 26 February 2024 and made subject to a two-year restraining order). Between July and August 2024 he inflicted multiple assaults on Victim B, including forceful push causing a displaced fractured finger requiring hospital treatment, kicking and blows to the head/back, and other abusive conduct. Police attended on 3 September 2024; the Appellant was found hiding, gave a false name and was arrested for breach of the restraining order. These 2024 offences led to the activation of the suspended sentence, revocation of the community order and the extended determinate sentence imposed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the statutory criteria for imposition of an extended licence were met.
2. Whether the judge erred in principle in concluding there was a significant risk to the public of serious harm from the Appellant committing further specified offences, such that an extended sentence was justified.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The extended licence criteria do not apply and the extended sentence is manifestly excessive.
• The judge was wrong in principle to find a significant risk of serious harm from future specified offending; the physical assaults had not crossed the threshold for serious harm and any risk of psychological harm was insufficient to justify extension.
• Specific sentencing categorisations were challenged: the Appellant argued the August 2024 assault against Victim B should not be Category 1B (asserting lesser harm and short duration and that mental disorder or learning difficulty reduce culpability); the assault against Victim A should be lower category (2B) due to alleged mitigating mental health factors; the breach of the restraining order should be Category 3 not 1A given alleged complicity by Victim B and resumed relationship.
• Mitigation: the Appellant relied on medical reports, engagement with some programmes and character references to reduce culpability and sentence.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Crown's case-specific submissions on appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed categorisation of culpability and harm under the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines and assessed the medical evidence. Key analytical steps were:

• Expert reports (Doctor Beigi and Doctor Khisty) were considered. Doctor Beigi identified likely ADHD and other conditions but did not treat ADHD as a causative factor; Doctor Khisty found ADHD and substance misuse but no severe mental disorder warranting compulsion under the Mental Health Act and confirmed fitness to plead and stand trial. The reports did not support a reduction in culpability based on mental disorder.
• For the August 2024 assault on Victim B the court agreed with the judge that culpability was B and harm was Category 1 (serious) because the displaced fractured finger substantially impacted Victim B's ability to work as a carer; the judge's classification as Category 1B was open on the facts.
• For the July 2022 retail‑park assault on Victim A the court rejected the submission that culpability should be reduced to B or 2B, noting Victim A's vulnerability and that substance misuse and alcohol were principal drivers of the Appellant's violent behaviour; the judge's placement in Category 2A was sustainable.
• On the breach of the restraining order, the court accepted the judge's finding of serious and persistent wilful breach (Category 1A), rejecting the contention that Victim B's apparent complicity amounted to reasonable excuse given the coercive domestic context and Victim B's reported fear; the judge's approach to harm and culpability was held to be open on the evidence.
• The court addressed the extended sentence statutory test (Sentencing Act 2020 s.280 and related provisions): the offence is specified, the Appellant was over 21, and life imprisonment was not required. The central question was whether there was a significant risk of serious harm from future specified offences. While acknowledging Lang, the court found ample evidence of an appalling history of repeated domestic violence, persistent breach of court orders, failure to engage meaningfully with interventions, and absence of convincing indications of capacity or desire to change. These facts supported the judge's conclusion of dangerousness and the necessity and proportionality of an extended sentence.
• The court considered totality, credit for guilty pleas, and the judge's calculations of notional terms; it noted reductions made by the judge in arriving at the imposed terms and found no error in principle or manifest excess in the custodial element.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court upheld the sentencing judge's categorizations, activation of prior suspended custody, and the imposition of extended determinate sentences with the extended licence period.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant's imposed sentences remain in force. The court concluded no error of principle in finding a significant risk of serious harm and in exercising the discretion to impose an extended sentence. The judgment does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond applying established sentencing principles to the facts of this case.

This summary is based exclusively on the provided opinion. Personal names and identifying details have been anonymised.