Pluck v Pluck

When reviewing imprisonment for breach of a protective injunction, the court must consider complete and accurate information about the offender’s vulnerabilities and the continuing factual basis for the order. A sentence may be plainly excessive where material information was unavailable to the sentencing judge, particularly where the protected person has moved away and the order no longer serves its apparent purpose. The appellate court may substitute a sentence permitting immediate release.

The appellant was imprisoned by HHJ Richards in the Norwich County Court after repeated breaches of orders restraining him from entering areas where the mother of his child was believed to live. The Official Solicitor had been appointed because of the appellant’s lack of litigation capacity, but the sentencing judge was not informed of his disabilities and vulnerabilities. Nor was the judge told that the mother had left the address and estate covered by the order. The appeal concerned whether the custodial sentence remained sustainable in light of that fuller information.

Appeal allowed. Lord Justice Thorpe held that the sentencing judge had been materially handicapped by the dearth of information available at the time of sentence. The judge had treated the appellant as having committed several deliberate and contumacious breaches and imposed imprisonment after concluding that the court’s patience had been exhausted.

The fuller information materially altered the assessment. The appellant had significant vulnerabilities, and the mother no longer lived at the address or on the estate protected by the injunction. On that footing, the existing restraint was itself unsustainable, and there was no apparent continuing reason to prevent the appellant from entering the relevant areas. The mother’s unknown whereabouts provided her principal protection.

The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that the sentence was plainly excessive when assessed against the information now available. It substituted a sentence allowing the appellant’s immediate release from custody. Lord Justice Wall and Judge Holman agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Norwich County Court allowed. The custodial sentence was substituted with a sentence permitting the appellant’s immediate release.
2. Norwich County Court: HHJ Richards imposed nine months’ imprisonment for breaches of orders restraining the appellant from entering the protected address and estate.