Bolland, R. v

On a committal for sentence under section 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the Crown Court may not impose more than six months for an individual offence or more than 12 months in aggregate. A sentence beyond those limits is unlawful and must be replaced. In applying totality, sentences for criminal damage which forms part of the same course of harassment should be concurrent. A three-year sentence for putting a person in fear of violence was not manifestly excessive where the conduct was sustained, threatening, committed in breach of bail, seriously affected a vulnerable victim, and followed similar offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the magistrates’ court to two offences of criminal damage, two offences of witness intimidation, putting a person in fear of violence contrary to section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and fraud. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under sections 3 and 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

At Manchester Crown Court, the Recorder imposed a total sentence of four years and two months’ imprisonment. The offending included sustained threats towards the appellant’s former partner and her family, intimidation of the partner and her father, and damage to property.

With leave of the single judge, the appellant challenged the Crown Court’s sentencing powers on the section 6 committals, the three-year sentence for harassment, and the overall sentence on grounds of totality.

The appeal was allowed in part. The total sentence was reduced from four years and two months’ imprisonment to three years and five months’ imprisonment.

1. Sentencing powers. The court held that, for offences committed under section 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, the Crown Court could impose no more than six months’ imprisonment for each offence and no more than 12 months in aggregate. The 14-month aggregate imposed for those offences was therefore unlawful. The two 12-month sentences for witness intimidation were quashed and replaced with sentences of five months’ imprisonment. The intimidation of the former partner was concurrent because it was linked to the harassment. The intimidation of her father remained a separate offence and was consecutive.
2. Harassment sentence. The three-year sentence for putting a person in fear of violence contrary to section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was not manifestly excessive. The conduct was protracted and vicious, placed a vulnerable young woman in fear of violence, had a serious impact upon her, and was partly committed while the appellant was on bail and prohibited from contacting her. His previous similar offending was also material.
3. Totality. The criminal damage was part of the harassment course of conduct. The sentences for those offences should therefore run concurrently with the other sentences. All other sentences remained unaffected.
4. Committal guidance. Witness intimidation is a distinct offence affecting the administration of justice and carries a maximum sentence of five years. Magistrates should think carefully before committing such offences to the Crown Court under section 6, given the statutory sentencing limits.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part and substituted a total sentence of three years and five months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Manchester (Crown Square): On 24 October 2017, imposed a total sentence of four years and two months’ imprisonment.
• Magistrates’ Court: Following guilty pleas, committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence under sections 3 and 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.