Taylor, R. v

Where harassment involves sustained threatening conduct and an intention to cause fear of violence, an immediate custodial sentence may be necessary despite slight physical injury. The sentence must nevertheless be proportionate to the gravity of the incidents, the offender’s recent record and applicable sentencing guidance. A sentence materially exceeding the appropriate custodial term will be reduced on appeal. A restraining order may properly remain in force where protection of the complainant is required.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leicester Crown Court to putting a person in fear of violence by harassment. Following the end of a long and unstable relationship, he used violence towards the complainant and her daughter, then made repeated threatening telephone calls, attended the complainant’s home, kicked the door and threatened serious violence.

On 9 April 2010, the Recorder imposed 12 months’ imprisonment after allowing credit for the guilty plea. He also made a five-year restraining order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act. The appellant challenged the length of the custodial sentence. The restraining order was raised at the hearing although no application for leave to appeal it had been made.

1. Appeal allowed as to sentence. The court substituted a sentence of 28 weeks’ imprisonment. An immediate custodial sentence was unavoidable, but the Recorder’s starting point of 18 months was too high.

2. The conduct was terrifying and deliberately threatening. It caused real fear to the complainant and her family. Those features justified custody, notwithstanding the recommendation in the pre-sentence report for a community order with a domestic-abuse programme.

3. In assessing proportionality, the court gave weight to the fact that the incidents, although serious, were less grave than some comparable cases and caused only slight physical injury. It also took account of the absence of convictions for more than five years and the fact that the appellant had not breached his earlier conditional discharge.

4. The Magistrates’ Court harassment guidelines, which had not been placed before the Recorder, indicated an 18-week custodial starting point for deliberate threats, persistent conduct over a longer period, or conduct intended to cause fear of violence. The appropriate sentence on the facts was 28 weeks’ immediate imprisonment.

5. The five-year restraining order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act was wholly appropriate and remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 28 weeks’ imprisonment. The restraining order was left undisturbed.

• Crown Court at Leicester: On 9 April 2010, imposed 12 months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea and made a five-year restraining order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act.