[2025] EWCA Crim 1188

THE SENTENCE

In passing sentence, the judge considered the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council for offences of controlling or coercive behaviour, assault and offences involving domestic abuse. Further, he considered the question of totality. As to the offence of engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour, the judge found that the offence was higher culpability given the fact that the conduct was persistent over a number of years, involved multiple methods to control Ms Smith, and was intended to humiliate and degrade her. Further, he found that the offence involved higher harm, in that the applicant caused Ms Smith very serious harm and distress which has had a substantial adverse effect upon her. The starting point was therefore 2½ years' imprisonment with a category range of 1 to 4 years.

Turning to the two assault offences, the judge found that these were medium culpability offences. The 2021 assault was a category 1 offence, in that the applicant used his fists and feet to inflict injury and it took Ms Smith a number of weeks to recover. The starting point was therefore 18 months' imprisonment with a category range of 9 months to 2½ years. The 2024 assault was a category 2 offence. The starting point was therefore 9 months with a category range up to 18 months' imprisonment.

The Recorder took the controlling or coercive behaviour as the lead offence, and said that he would pass a sentence that reflected the applicant's overall criminality. He therefore treated the assaults as aggravating features of the offence. Further, the offence was aggravated to some extent by the applicant's previous convictions, albeit the offences were of some age and dissimilar.

The Recorder found minimal evidence of remorse. He observed that the applicant had denied the offences at trial and he agreed with the author of the pre-sentence report that the applicant's primary focus was on the negative impact that the offences had had on himself. The applicant had sought to blame Ms Smith. Further, the pre-sentence report identified a high risk of future violence and a medium risk of serious harm to future intimate partners.

By way of mitigation, the judge considered the progress that the applicant was making in custody and his own poor mental health, which the judge observed did not affect culpability but would make prison harder for him. The judge also took into account current prison conditions and the character references before the court.

THE APPEAL

By this appeal the applicant seeks to argue that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive and that insufficient consideration was given to totality.

In refusing leave to appeal sentence, the Single Judge said:

"There were two separate and serious instances of ABH. There was also sustained coercive and controlling behaviour. The overall sentence had to reflect all three offences. I can see no error in the Recorder’s categorisation for sentencing guideline purposes; and a total sentence of 40 months imprisonment after trial properly reflected such mitigation as was available and principles of totality."

We agree. This was sustained and serious offending in the context of an intimate relationship. Particularly serious violence was used in 2021 and these offences have had a serious impact upon the applicant's former partner. There is no merit whatever in this appeal and we refuse the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and we direct a loss of time order of 28 days.

Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.

Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]