Woods, R v

In a sentence appeal concerning repeated breaches of a restraining order, a sentencing judge may infer significant psychological harm from the evidence and circumstances even without a victim impact statement. Persistent offending against vulnerable family members, repeated defiance of court orders and the failure of earlier short custodial sentences are substantial aggravating features. They may justify a significant immediate custodial term.

An appellate court will not interfere where the sentencing judge was entitled to make those findings and the total sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty to two assaults by beating and several breaches of a restraining order. He was committed from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court at Southwark for sentence.

On 17 December 2014, the Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences for the assaults and one breach, consecutive concurrent sentences for two further breaches, and activated in full a suspended sentence. The total was three years’ imprisonment.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal sentence. He contended that the total was manifestly excessive because there was no evidence of significant physical or psychological harm.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal sentence was dismissed. The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to place the offending in the most serious category of the relevant guideline.

2. The absence of a victim impact statement did not prevent a finding of significant psychological harm. The mother’s evidence of fear and constant anxiety, together with the circumstances of repeated drunken intrusions and threats at the parents’ home, supported that finding as an inescapable inference.

3. The applicant’s parents were vulnerable through ill health. His record included numerous offences involving assault, disorder and drunkenness. He had repeatedly breached the restraining order, and prior short custodial sentences had not altered his conduct. Those were serious aggravating features, and a significant custodial sentence was inevitable.

4. There was no basis for saying that the aggregate sentence of three years was manifestly excessive. The court also directed that fourteen days already served should not count towards the sentence, as the unmeritorious renewed application had delayed more meritorious appeals.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal sentence dismissed.
• Crown Court at Southwark: on 17 December 2014 imposed an aggregate sentence of three years’ imprisonment after guilty pleas and activation of a suspended sentence.
• Magistrates’ Court: following guilty pleas, committed the applicant to the Crown Court for sentence.