Sharpe, R v

For a serious offence of threatening a person because that person gave evidence, immediate custody may be required even where the threat is made only once and no violence follows. A threatening message left anonymously can cause substantial alarm, and the offender cannot rely on uncertainty about its actual effect on the victim.

In an appropriate case, a sentencing starting point of two and a half to three years’ imprisonment may be justified. A reduction of between one quarter and one third may then be made for a guilty plea. A sentence of two years’ imprisonment, reached from a three-year starting point with full credit for plea, was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant had previously been sentenced to imprisonment after pleading guilty to affray and dangerous driving arising from an incident witnessed by Mr Bigwood. While in prison, he telephoned Mr Bigwood’s business and left an ominous message accusing him of causing the appellant’s imprisonment and threatening that his life would be slowly destroyed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to threatening an act intended to cause fear of harm, knowing or believing that the recipient had given evidence in criminal proceedings, contrary to section 51(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The Crown Court imposed two years’ immediate imprisonment. He appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, relying principally on R v MacDonald [2008] EWCA Crim 707.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The sentence of two years’ immediate imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. Interference with a person who has given, or may give, evidence is a very serious attack on the due process of law. The court endorsed the Recorder’s conclusion that such conduct requires a firm sentencing response. This was not a case in which imprisonment should be suspended.

3. The absence of physical violence distinguished the case from R v MacDonald [2008] EWCA Crim 707, where violence had been used in front of the victim’s children. That distinction did not make the present threat insignificant. A threatening message left on an answering machine, apparently by an unknown caller, may cause grave worry and alarm.

4. The lack of a victim impact statement did not materially reduce the seriousness. An offender making such a threat cannot know how seriously the recipient will take it or what harm it may cause. The deliberate, disguised and ominous nature of the message, made shortly after the appellant’s imprisonment for the incident in which the recipient had assisted the police, justified a starting point between two and a half and three years.

5. The Recorder had effectively adopted a three-year starting point and reduced it by one third for the guilty plea. Although another judge might have selected a slightly lower starting point, the resulting two-year sentence was within the proper sentencing range.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The two-year sentence of immediate imprisonment was upheld.
• Crown Court at Taunton: On 18 September 2009, the appellant pleaded guilty to the section 51(2) offence under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.
• Taunton Deane and West Somerset Magistrates’ Court: On 22 August 2009, the appellant pleaded guilty to an offence under section 51(1) and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.