Ramthor , R. v

On an appeal against sentence, the court assesses the case in the round. A disputed sentencing-category assessment will not justify intervention where the offence’s aggravating features and its impact on the victim can properly support substantially the same sentence by a different route, after allowing for mitigation. The appellate question remains whether the sentence is manifestly excessive.

Where a custodial sentence fails to give the offender proper credit for time subject to a qualifying curfew, it is unlawful to that extent and must be corrected.

The appellant, aged 21 and of previous good character, pleaded guilty before magistrates to sexual assault. On 18 August 2017, the Crown Court at St Albans sentenced him to 21 months’ imprisonment.

The assault occurred after the appellant followed an unknown woman from a railway station in the early morning and sexually assaulted her on a towpath. The sentencing judge assessed harm as on the cusp between categories 1 and 2, and culpability as between categories A and B. He treated the location, timing and psychological harm as aggravating.

The appellant appealed by leave of the single judge. He contended that the sentencing category and starting point were too high and that the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive. A separate issue concerned credit for a qualifying curfew.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court rejected the challenge to the length of the 21-month custodial sentence. It allowed the appeal only to correct the failure to credit the appellant for a qualifying curfew. It directed that 14 days should count towards service of the sentence.
2. The judge’s assessment of harm as at the cusp of categories 1 and 2 was reasonably open to him. The court accepted that the appellant’s challenge to the culpability category was arguable, and considered that the case could be viewed as lying on the cusp between categories 1B and 2B.
3. That possible difference in categorisation did not make the sentence manifestly excessive. Looking at the matter in the round, the seriousness of the location and timing of the assault, together with the substantial psychological effect on the victim, justified a sentence broadly equivalent to that imposed even when full allowance was made for the early guilty plea, youth and previous good character.
4. The court held that the sentence was technically but importantly unlawful because the sentencing judge had not given appropriate credit for the qualifying curfew. The record could be corrected administratively if the calculation of 14 days later proved inaccurate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against sentence allowed only to correct qualifying-curfew credit; the challenge to the 21-month term of imprisonment was rejected.
• Crown Court at St Albans: On 18 August 2017, imposed 21 months’ imprisonment following the appellant’s guilty plea to sexual assault.
• Magistrates’ court: The appellant pleaded guilty to sexual assault; further details are not stated in the judgment.