Hannan, R v

A sentencing court may adopt the statutory maximum as the starting point where the offending falls within the band of the gravest cases of that type. It need not be the worst case that can be imagined. The court may also increase the sentence for the principal offence to reflect other offences sentenced concurrently.

A guilty plea at the first reasonable opportunity does not invariably attract the full reduction. A judge may allow only 20 per cent credit where the evidence is overwhelming and the procedural history justifies that reduction.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Lewes to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and two offences of criminal damage. The offences arose from a prolonged and violent domestic attack on HS, followed by further damage when he returned to her home. He received an extended sentence of five years, comprising four years’ custody and a one-year licence period.

He appealed against sentence, contending that the judge had taken an excessive starting point and had allowed insufficient credit for his guilty pleas. The central issues were whether a five-year starting point was justified and whether credit could properly be limited to 20 per cent.

1. Appeal dismissed. The four-year custodial term and one-year extension period were upheld.
2. The judge was fully entitled to take five years’ custody, the statutory maximum for the principal offence, as the starting point before allowance for the guilty plea. A maximum sentence is not confined to the worst conceivable case. It may be justified where the case falls within the band of worst offending and is of the utmost gravity for that offence type: R v Bright [2008] EWCA Crim. 462; R v Butt [2006] EWCA Crim. 47.
3. This was a grave and sustained attack involving a vulnerable victim in her own home, young children nearby, coercive and controlling conduct, abuse of trust and power, threats, obstruction of attempts to obtain help, and the appellant’s serious record. The additional criminal-damage offences also mattered. The court could reflect concurrent sentences for those offences by increasing the sentence for the principal offence; one count could otherwise have attracted a consecutive term.
4. The judge was also entitled to allow 20 per cent, rather than 30 per cent, credit for the pleas. Although the pleas were entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity, the appellant had initially given a prepared statement which did not address the assault, and the evidence was overwhelming. The applicable guilty-plea guideline permitted credit to be reduced to 20 per cent in that situation. The judge’s description of the evidence as compelling did not disclose error.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2017] EWCA Crim 2503.
• Crown Court at Lewes — the appellant pleaded guilty on 9 March 2017. On 17 March 2017, Her Honour Judge Waddicor imposed a five-year extended sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, with concurrent sentences for criminal damage.