Nagy, R v

Sentencing for a serious offence under Protection from Harassment Act 1997 must reflect the full circumstances. The guidance in Liddle and Hayes [2000] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 131 that a short, sharp sentence may suit first offending does not make that approach appropriate for a sustained and violent section 4 offence. Prior violence, conduct showing an inability to control temper, and a prolonged violent episode are material aggravating features. They may justify an immediate custodial sentence of greater length. Such offending should not be reduced to the level of a relatively minor common assault merely because the physical injuries alone could have supported that charge.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court to putting a person in fear of violence by harassment, contrary to section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He had entered his former partner’s home, threatened her, used a knife and bottle during a violent altercation, and caused minor physical injury.

On 15 May 2009, the Recorder imposed 12 months’ imprisonment for the harassment offence and a consecutive month for breach of a conditional discharge. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the incident was isolated, that mitigation had insufficient weight, and that the sentence should have been shorter or suspended. The central issue was whether the immediate 12-month sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The sentence of 12 months’ immediate imprisonment for the section 4 harassment offence was justified, as was the consecutive one-month term for breach of the conditional discharge.
2. The court considered the sentencing guidance in Liddle and Hayes [2000] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 131. It stressed that the facts of each case vary and may require a longer sentence. The observation that a short, sharp sentence may be appropriate for a first offence did not govern a serious section 4 offence involving violence. That authority concerned section 2 harassment and did not address the more serious violent offence under Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
3. Two aggravating features justified the sentence. The appellant had previously served custody for a violent assault and had convictions for criminal damage indicating difficulty controlling his temper. Further, although the incident was isolated in the sense of being a single episode, it was particularly bad and sustained. It involved violence, threats, foul language, a knife, a bottle, and intimidation of the complainant in her home.
4. The conduct could not properly be treated as a relatively minor common assault merely because the injuries were consistent with that offence. Its sustained and violent character explained the section 4 charge and supported the custodial sentence.
5. The mitigation, including the guilty plea, asserted remorse, compliance with bail conditions, and willingness to engage with support, did not outweigh the aggravating features. The breach of the conditional discharge was itself an additional aggravating feature, so a consecutive term was proper.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld the immediate 12-month sentence, with a consecutive one-month term for breach of a conditional discharge.
• Preston Crown Court — on 15 May 2009 imposed 12 months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea to section 4 harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, plus one consecutive month for breach of a conditional discharge.