Clark, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This was an appeal against sentence from the Crown Court at Harrow, with leave granted by the single judge. The Court of Appeal also directed reporting restrictions because the victim was a child, being 14 at the time of the offence and 16 at the time of the appeal, and the judgment referred to him as “Victim” for anonymity. [Para 27][Para 28]

On 5 August 2025, the Appellant, then aged 43, was convicted at Willesden Magistrates’ Court of making threats to kill and assault by beating. He was committed for sentence on 3 September 2025 and, on 29 October 2025, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for threats to kill, with no separate penalty for assault by beating, and a five-year restraining order was imposed. [Para 29][Para 31]

The offending occurred on 15 March 2025 when the Appellant approached the Victim on his way to school, grabbed him by the jumper, pinned him against a wall, waved a screwdriver in his face, and threatened to kill him. The background included the Victim’s communication with the Appellant’s 13-year-old daughter on social media, and the Victim was accompanied by members of the Appellant’s family when the incident occurred. [Para 34][Para 35]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Recorder had properly applied the sentencing guidelines, including culpability and harm categorisation, for the offence of making threats to kill. [Para 43][Para 61]
2. Whether sufficient weight had been given to the Appellant’s mitigation, including his lack of previous convictions, remorse, health problems, and caring responsibilities. [Para 44][Para 45][Para 54][Para 63]
3. Whether the sentence should have been 24 months or less, such that suspension could have been considered. [Para 51][Para 52][Para 60]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the Recorder failed to make any reduction within the guideline range, or to move to a lower culpability category, to reflect a culpability C factor. [Para 48]
• He argued that insufficient weight was given to mitigation. [Para 49]
• He submitted that the sentence should have been 24 months or less and therefore capable of suspension. [Para 50]
• Counsel emphasised remorse, previous good character, health problems, rehabilitation prospects, the impact on the Appellant’s minor child, and the protective background to the incident. [Para 53][Para 54]

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court held that the offending was serious because the Appellant attacked the Victim in the street with a screwdriver, even though it was not used to cause physical injury. The court treated the weapon, the young age of the Victim, the fact that the Victim was on his way to school, and the presence of family members as aggravating features. [Para 56]

The court considered the wider context but rejected any suggestion that the Appellant’s reaction to ordinary teenage social-media communication was justified. It noted that he had no convictions, had been caring for his children in difficult circumstances, and suffered significant personal consequences from the offence, including loss of his home and homelessness for his daughters. [Para 57][Para 58]

The court agreed that the offence fell within culpability A and category 1 harm, with a guideline starting point of four years’ imprisonment. It also considered that the presence of two offences, the Victim’s age, and the use of the Appellant’s family members as support warranted movement upward from the starting point before mitigation. [Para 61]

Even so, the court found substantial mitigation, including the absence of previous convictions, serious medical problems, the loss of the family home, the impact on the younger daughter, and some remorse. It concluded that immediate custody was necessary, but that four years was excessive in light of those mitigating factors. [Para 62][Para 63][Para 64][Para 65]

The court also held that suspension did not arise because the sentence finally imposed exceeded the maximum term that could have been suspended at the relevant time. [Para 59][Para 65]

Holding and Implications

The appeal succeeded in part. The court quashed the four-year sentence and substituted a sentence of three years’ imprisonment. The restraining order remained unchanged. The court did not set any new precedent; it applied existing sentencing principles to the facts of this case. [Para 66][Para 67]