Evans, R. v

An immediate custodial sentence may be justified for persistent harassment and repeated breaches of protective court orders, even where the offender is elderly. Imprisonment for an offender in their eighties remains a last resort and calls for great reluctance. Age is nevertheless not a licence to disregard the law or to continue conduct causing serious distress to neighbours.

In fixing the term, the court must give proper weight to the particular impact of custody on an elderly and vulnerable offender. A shorter sentence may adequately mark the seriousness of the conduct and provide deterrence where it can achieve the necessary penal purpose.

The applicant, aged 82, sought leave to appeal against a sentence of six months’ imprisonment imposed in the Cardiff Crown Court after a jury convicted her of harassment and six breaches of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order.

She had a lengthy history of harassment of neighbours and of breaches of a restraining order. The sentencing judge found that she had persistently made life distressing for her neighbours, had not been deterred by fines or a suspended sentence, and had failed to cooperate with the probation service. The appeal concerned whether immediate custody was appropriate given her age and health, and whether six months was excessive.

1. Leave was granted and the appeal was allowed in part. The term of imprisonment was reduced from six months to four months.

2. Immediate custody was plainly justified. The applicant had repeatedly harassed neighbours, persistently breached protective court orders, and failed to respond to fines or a suspended prison sentence. There was no medical evidence making imprisonment inappropriate, and no realistic basis for considering a community sentence after her deliberate failure to cooperate with probation.

3. The court accepted that imprisonment of a person in their eighties is rare, a measure of last resort, and to be approached with great reluctance. On these facts, however, there was no effective non-custodial alternative. Her age did not excuse continued unlawful conduct or the serious distress caused to neighbours.

4. Six months was understandable and the sentencing judge was not criticised. Nevertheless, a four-month term sufficiently met the justice of the case. Custody would have a particularly severe effect on an elderly and vulnerable offender, while a shorter sentence could adequately bring home the seriousness of the conduct and serve the required deterrent purpose.

5. The Anti-Social Behaviour Order remained in force. Further serious breaches could attract a further prison sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal against sentence was granted. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the sentence was reduced from six months’ to four months’ imprisonment: [2007] EWCA Crim 1158.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: Following jury convictions for harassment and six breaches of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order, the applicant was sentenced to six months’ immediate imprisonment.