Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after a Single Judge had refused leave, and also sought an extension of time. The extension was granted because prison transfers delayed notification of the refusal, and the Applicant applied promptly after receiving it. [1][2]
The Applicant pleaded guilty to putting a person in fear of violence by harassment, contrary to section 4(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, after the prosecution accepted a plea to that lesser offence instead of threats to kill. [3]
The Applicant received an extended sentence comprising five years and two months’ custody and three years on extended licence. A restraining order also prohibited contact with the victim’s adult daughter and approaching residences where the victim or her daughter lived. [4]
The offending involved repeated and graphic threats to kill the victim, including threats made by telephone and through a video call displaying a knife. The threats caused the victim and other witnesses severe fear and distress. [5][6][7][8]
The sentencing judge treated the offence as category 1 harm and category A culpability under the applicable Sentencing Council Guidelines. The sentence was increased from the five-year starting point to six years and six months because of aggravating features, then reduced by 20 per cent for the guilty plea. [9][10]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive because the offence was wrongly placed in category A rather than category B. [11]
- Whether the short duration of the offending, approximately 25 minutes, reduced its culpability. [11][12]
- Whether uncertainty about the existence of a non-molestation order affected the sentencing assessment. [11][13]
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant’s Arguments
- The sentence was manifestly excessive because the judge wrongly classified the offending as category A. [11]
- The offending lasted only approximately 25 minutes. [11]
- It was unclear whether a non-molestation order was already in force when the offence occurred, so that factor could not safely be relied upon. [11]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to regard the conduct as intended to maximise fear or distress to an extreme degree. The repeated and graphic threats, considered alongside the history of earlier threats and violence, made the offending particularly frightening and materially relevant to culpability. [14][15]
The Court concluded that the short duration of the telephone calls did not alter the classification. The threats were exceptionally specific and graphic, including a demonstration of how the knife would be used, and their effect on the victim was terrifying. [16]
The Court accepted that the prosecution had not proved to the criminal standard that a non-molestation order was in force when the offence occurred. Nevertheless, removing that factor did not reduce culpability from category A to category B, particularly because the Applicant was subject to post-sentence supervision and licence after recent convictions. [13]
Holding and Implications
Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the category A classification was justified by the extreme nature and context of the threats. [17]
The direct effect was that the extended sentence remained in force. The opinion identifies no broader implications or new precedent.