Holman, R. v

False imprisonment covers conduct of widely differing seriousness. In an offence arising from a personal relationship, sentence must reflect the duration of detention, the use or threat of violence, the victim’s fear and lasting harm, and any prior misconduct towards the victim.

For a serious but relatively brief detention, without violence and with limited lasting effects, a term of three years after a guilty plea was significantly excessive. Comparable sentencing decisions supported a custodial range of two to three years, with the particular mitigation justifying a sentence at the lower end.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Isleworth to false imprisonment and harassment arising from his conduct towards a former partner. He locked her inside her home, disconnected the telephone and compelled her to accompany him while he searched the house. The incident lasted about 30 to 45 minutes.

Despite a subsequent police warning, he made further calls and visits to the complainant and her family. The Crown Court imposed three years’ imprisonment for false imprisonment, no separate penalty for harassment, and a restraining order. The appellant appealed against sentence with leave of the Single Judge.

The central issue was whether the three-year term properly reflected the gravity of the detention and the mitigating features of the offence.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court quashed the three-year sentence for false imprisonment and substituted a sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

2. False imprisonment varies greatly in seriousness. The Court considered the sentencing guidance provided by Spence and Thomas (1983) 5 Cr App R(S) 413 and the later comparative authorities. Those authorities showed that serious false imprisonment in the setting of a personal relationship commonly attracted immediate custodial sentences, with more serious examples supporting terms of between two and three years after a guilty plea.

3. This was a serious offence and plainly required custody. The appellant’s record of harassment and breaches of restraining orders, together with the assessed risk of similar conduct in future relationships, were significant aggravating features.

4. However, the complainant knew the appellant, he used no violence, the detention was short, and the incident appeared to have caused few lasting effects. Although his behaviour was erratic and frightening, those features materially distinguished the case from the more prolonged and violent comparators. A three-year term was therefore significantly too high following the guilty plea. The appropriate sentence was two years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted two years’ imprisonment for the three-year term imposed for false imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Isleworth: The appellant pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and harassment. He received three years’ imprisonment for false imprisonment, no separate penalty for harassment, and a restraining order.