Summary of Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted after a four-day jury trial in the Crown Court (The City) before Judge Mills of: (1) one count of making a threat to kill relating to events on 9 November 2024; and (2) one count of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship over the period September 2022 to December 2024. The Appellant was sentenced to a total of 5 years 5 months' imprisonment (3 years 3 months for the threats to kill; 2 years 5 months consecutive for the coercive and controlling behaviour). The Appellant appealed the sentence with permission granted by a single judge. Judge Andrews delivered the Court of Appeal judgment (sitting with Judge Bennathan and Judge Picton).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge correctly categorised the offence of making a threat to kill and the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour under the Sentencing Council guidelines (including the appropriate harm and culpability categories).
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying aggravating factors (including prior domestic offending) and in elevating the sentence from the stated starting points.
3. Whether the imposition of consecutive sentences and the downward adjustment for totality produced a manifestly excessive overall sentence (i.e. whether totality/double counting principles were properly applied).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Gwilym)

• The coercive control offence was wrongly categorised for harm and should have been a lower harm category (not category 1); there was no evidence of serious psychological harm or sustained fear of violence on many occasions.
• The threats to kill, although serious, involved double counting of the panic attack/distress in the elevation from the starting point (i.e. the panic attack was part of the reason for placing the offence in the higher category already).
• Consecutive sentences were inappropriate given the similarity and continuity of the offending; at minimum there should have been a larger downward adjustment for totality or concurrent sentences with an elevated lead sentence.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The threat to kill was rightly placed in a mid-to-high culpability category (category B1) with category 1 harm because of very serious distress to the victim.
• The controlling and coercive behaviour warranted the highest culpability classification advanced by the prosecution (category A with higher culpability factors), and category 1 harm, with starting points and ranges as set out in the sentencing note.
• Previous convictions for assault were a statutory aggravating factor supporting uplift and a custodial approach.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court emphasised that the sentencing judge had the advantage of having presided over the trial and therefore was well placed to assess the seriousness and impact of the offending. The Court accepted the trial judge's findings of fact concerning prolonged, repeated and graphic threats made while the victim suffered a prolonged panic attack and was effectively confined to her home, and the extensive pattern of coercive control over more than two years. On those findings the Court agreed that both offences involved category 1 harm.

For the threats to kill, the judge placed the offence in category B1 (starting point 2 years) and increased the sentence to reflect multiple, graphic threats, the victim's particular vulnerability (panic attack) and the domestic context. The Court rejected the submission that this amounted to impermissible double counting, noting that the panic attack formed part of the justification for elevation and that a sentence towards the top of the range was justified given the lack of remorse and limited mitigation.

For the controlling and coercive behaviour, the Court endorsed the judge's classification of the offence within category A1 (starting point 2 years 6 months), with a modest uplift for the prior relevant conviction resulting in 2 years 8 months. The judge treated the two offences as sufficiently distinct in context to justify consecutive sentences, while reducing the total by 6 months (3 months on each count) to reflect similarity and achieve proportionality.

The Court considered alternative sentencing structures (including elevating the lead offence and passing a concurrent sentence on the other offence) and concluded that the overall tariff was within the available range of reasonable outcomes. Consequently, the Court found no error in the judge's application of the guidelines, aggravating factors or totality principles.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal against sentence and upheld the total sentence of 5 years 5 months' imprisonment (3 years 3 months on the threats to kill; 2 years 5 months consecutive for controlling and coercive behaviour after the judge's adjustments).

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant's sentence stands as imposed. The Court did not purport to establish any new principle of law; the decision applies the Sentencing Council guidelines and established totality principles to the facts of this case.

---

Administrative note: Transcript and administrative details in the opinion were recorded by Company A.