Kaddu, R v

In a sentencing appeal, guideline category and seriousness must be assessed by reference to the whole course of conduct, including intended as well as actual harm. A court need not isolate a minor physical injury from a sustained and frightening assault involving control, vulnerability, psychological harm, premeditation and weapon use.

An above-guideline starting point may be justified where exceptional aggravating features make the offence markedly more serious than the ordinary category case. A restraining order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 may continue until further order, but its terms must provide a workable means for lawful arrangements concerning children.

The appellant pleaded guilty, at a very late stage of his trial, to assault occasioning actual bodily harm against his former partner. He had concealed himself in her home before carrying out a prolonged knife attack which caused physical injuries and lasting anxiety. The Crown Court at Wood Green imposed three years and seven months’ imprisonment after allowing ten per cent credit for the plea. It also made an indefinite restraining order.

He appealed against sentence, contending that the offence should not have been placed in category 1 of the sentencing guideline, that the custodial term was manifestly excessive, and that the restraining order was too broad and unworkable in relation to contact with the parties’ children.

1. Appeal allowed only in part. The appeal against the custodial sentence failed. The appeal succeeded only to permit substitution of a more workable restraining order.

2. The Recorder was entitled to place the offence in category 1. The complainant’s evidence established psychological injury serious in the context of the offence, despite the absence of expert medical evidence. She remained anxious six months later, required therapy and had left her home. She was particularly vulnerable during an attack in her home while responsible for young children, and the attack was sustained.

3. The assessment had to address the entirety of the prolonged assault. It would have been artificial to focus only on the minor knife wound. Significant premeditation, use of a weapon, continual control and domination, and an intention to cause further harm were all indicators of higher culpability.

4. The four-year starting point, although above the guideline range, was justified by the many serious aggravating features. They included the circumstances and timing of the attack, degradation of the complainant, the presence of the children, its lasting effects, relevant previous convictions and offending while on bail. The late guilty plea merited no complaint as to the ten per cent credit. The resulting sentence of three years and seven months was not manifestly excessive.

5. An order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 could properly continue until further order. However, the existing child-contact exception was likely to be unworkable because it lacked a suitable alternative if arrangements changed. The court quashed it and substituted an order prohibiting contact except through a solicitor, the relevant social services department, or in accordance with an order of the Family Court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal only to substitute the restraining order; otherwise upheld the sentence ([2015] EWCA Crim 2531).
• Crown Court at Wood Green — on 5 March 2015 imposed three years and seven months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and made a restraining order.