Debenham, R. v

A sentence for breach of an anti-social behaviour order must reflect the need to secure compliance with court orders and to protect the public. It must also remain proportionate to the offender’s actual conduct. The court should take account of any guilty plea, the nature of the breach, relevant sentencing authorities and the offender’s record. Even repeated and deliberate breaches do not justify a sentence that exceeds the criminality of the conduct under consideration.

The appellant appealed, with leave of the single judge, against sentences imposed at Ipswich Crown Court on 9 November 2006 for two breaches of anti-social behaviour orders and theft.

He had repeatedly breached orders restricting alcohol-related conduct within Ipswich. The two breaches before the Recorder involved being drunk while possessing lager and aftershave, and stealing razor blades and aftershave worth just over £13. The Recorder imposed concurrent terms of three years’ imprisonment for the breaches and six months’ imprisonment for theft.

The appeal challenged the starting point, the credit for guilty pleas and the weight given to public protection rather than the actual criminality of the conduct.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment for the two breaches of the anti-social behaviour order were excessive. They were replaced with concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment. The six-month sentence for theft remained in force.
2. Sentences for breach of an anti-social behaviour order must reflect the importance of compliance with court orders and the protection of the public. The appellant was a serial offender who had committed further breaches shortly after earlier sentences and while a suspended sentence remained current.
3. Those aggravating features did not displace the need to assess the actual conduct constituting the breaches. The conduct was being drunk while possessing a can of strong lager and aftershave, followed by theft of low-value goods. The court also took account of the guilty pleas and of the comparative sentencing guidance derived collectively from R v Thomas [2005] 1 Cr App R(S) 9, R v Braxton [2005] 1 Cr App R(S) 36, R v Dickinson [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 78 and R v Bulmer [2006] 2 Cr App R(S) 55.
4. Neither the suspended sentence nor the earlier custodial sentence was activated or revived. The Court of Appeal considered that course inappropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — appeal allowed in part: the sentences for the two breaches were reduced from three years to 18 months: [2007] EWCA Crim 891.
• Crown Court at Ipswich — on 9 November 2006, imposed concurrent three-year sentences for two breaches of anti-social behaviour orders and a concurrent six-month sentence for theft.