Whitham, R. v

A suspended sentence order comprising terms for several offences is, in law, a single suspended custodial term. A court dealing with a breach cannot activate only one component term; any activation must relate to the whole term, although its length may be reduced.

In domestic-abuse sentencing, the domestic context is an aggravating feature because it violates the trust and security of an intimate or family relationship. The court must avoid double counting, assess the applicable guideline categories and ranges, and ensure that the total sentence reflects the overall seriousness. Consecutive sentences may be appropriate, and an appeal court will focus on the totality of the sentence rather than its individual structure.

The appellant pleaded guilty on the day fixed for trial to controlling or coercive behaviour towards his former partner, harassment causing her mother to fear violence, and threatening behaviour towards police officers. The offending was committed shortly after he had received a suspended sentence order for offences against the same women and a restraining order protecting his former partner.

On 27 June 2019, the Crown Court imposed consecutive sentences which, with activation of the suspended sentence, totalled 43 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the sentences were excessive, improperly consecutive, and insufficiently reduced for his guilty pleas and totality.

The appeal also raised the correct legal effect of activating a suspended sentence order comprising separate terms for several offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of 43 months’ imprisonment was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The earlier suspended sentence order imposed a single term of 18 weeks’ imprisonment, notwithstanding that it comprised terms for three offences. Applying R v Bostan [2018] EWCA Crim 494, the court held that a later court could not activate only one constituent term. The sentencing judge’s order was therefore treated as activation of the whole 18-week term, reduced to 12 weeks. The Crown Court record was directed to be corrected accordingly.

3. The offending was serious. It was committed in breach of both a suspended sentence order and a restraining order, caused serious harm, and followed relevant convictions. The domestic context aggravated the offending because it breached the trust and security expected within an intimate or family relationship. That feature was relevant without unfairly double counting it.

4. The controlling or coercive behaviour properly fell within category 1B of the relevant guideline. The harassment offence properly fell within category 2B. The judge was entitled to sentence at, or high within, the applicable ranges because of the circumstances, harm, previous convictions, and the breaches of the earlier orders.

5. There was no error of principle in making the sentences for the first two counts consecutive. In any event, totality requires attention to the overall sentence rather than its structure. The limited consecutive sentence for the public-order offence showed that totality had been considered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against sentence and directed correction of the Crown Court record to show activation of the single 18-week suspended term, reduced to 12 weeks.
• Crown Court — on 27 June 2019, imposed a total sentence of 43 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to offences including one under Serious Crime Act 2015 section 76 and one under Protection from Harassment Act 1997 section 4.