Harris, R. v

A sentence for breach of an anti-social behaviour order is not assessed solely by reference to the maximum sentence for the underlying substantive offence. The breach is a distinct statutory offence, carrying its own maximum penalty, and may justify a substantially longer sentence where its criminality warrants it.

A defendant who enters a prompt guilty plea is ordinarily entitled to the normal guideline discount. Credit is not withheld or reduced because the defendant was caught red-handed or had no realistic defence. Where the definitive guideline had normative force, the sentencing court must give effect to it even if a longer sentence appears deserved.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton to two offences of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of children and to breaching an anti-social behaviour order which prohibited him from associating with females under 16. He received concurrent sentences of 18 months for the sexual offences and four years for the breach.

He appealed, with leave, against the four-year sentence. He contended that it was inherently disproportionate for a single breach and that it failed to allow proper credit for his prompt guilty pleas. The central issues were the distinct seriousness of breach of the order and the applicable reduction for a guilty plea.

1. The appeal was allowed only as to sentence. The four-year sentence for breach of the anti-social behaviour order was quashed and replaced with three years and four months’ imprisonment. The 133 days spent on remand continued to count towards sentence.

2. The four-year sentence was not inherently disproportionate merely because it exceeded the concurrent sentences imposed for the substantive sexual offences. A breach of the order was a separate statutory offence, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. It was wrong to treat its penalty as confined by the maximum available for the distinct underlying offending. The court adopted the observation in R v H Stevens and Lovegrove [2006] EWCA Crim 255 and held that the appellant’s conduct disclosed criminality capable of justifying a four-year term.

3. However, the sentence did not give appropriate effect to the appellant’s prompt guilty pleas. The definitive Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance required the ordinary sliding-scale reduction even where an offender was caught red-handed or had no conceivable defence. Its purpose was to encourage the earliest possible plea.

4. Although the court considered the original sentence richly deserved and noted criticism of the guideline, the guideline had normative status at the relevant time. A one-third discount for the prompt plea was akin to an entitlement. Applying that requirement made the four-year term excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the appeal against sentence only to the extent of substituting three years and four months’ imprisonment for the four-year sentence for breach of the anti-social behaviour order: [2006] EWCA Crim 1864.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton — On guilty pleas, imposed concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment for two sexual offences and four years’ imprisonment for breach of the anti-social behaviour order.