Dalgarno, R v

A community order may be unduly lenient for grave, sustained domestic abuse where the applicable sentencing guideline indicates immediate custody and the offender has repeatedly failed to respond to earlier rehabilitative opportunities. In assessing seriousness, the court should evaluate the persistence and methods of coercive control, violence, isolation, threats, humiliation and the resulting harm to the victim.

Rehabilitation remains a proper sentencing aim, but it cannot displace a sentence that properly reflects prolonged and oppressive criminal conduct, particularly where there is a substantial history of similar domestic abuse and non-compliance with court orders.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient a sentence imposed at the Crown Court at Taunton on 19 December 2019.

The offender had pleaded guilty to controlling or coercive behaviour towards a former partner, taking her car without authority and criminal damage. The offending comprised sustained coercive control, threats and physical violence, followed by further offending after his arrest and release on bail. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent 24-month community orders and an indefinite restraining order.

The central issue was whether a community sentence was unduly lenient in light of the guideline assessment, the serious harm caused, and the offender's extensive history of violent domestic offending.

1. The reference was allowed. The court granted leave and held that the community order imposed for the controlling or coercive behaviour was unduly lenient. It substituted three years' immediate imprisonment on count 1, with concurrent three-month sentences on counts 3 and 4. The restraining order remained in force, and 81 days spent on remand were directed to count towards the custodial sentence.

2. The offending was grave, protracted domestic abuse. It fell clearly within the guideline definition of domestic abuse: a pattern of controlling, coercive, threatening and violent conduct directed towards an intimate partner. Applying the guideline for offences under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, the court classified the offence as category 1A.

3. Category A culpability arose from the sustained course of conduct, multiple methods of control, monitoring of telephone and social-media use, acquisition of archived telephone records, threats, physical violence, isolation of the victim, and conduct intended to humiliate and degrade her. Category 1 harm arose because the victim feared violence, was repeatedly assaulted and had to leave her home. The applicable starting point was 30 months' imprisonment, with a range of one to four years.

4. There were substantial aggravating features: repeated previous domestic violence, violence while the victim was pregnant, offending on bail, drug and alcohol use, and efforts to prevent reporting. The guilty pleas were the only mitigation. Although a merciful and constructive sentence was not inherently wrong, the judge had to consider the wider history of an offender who had repeatedly failed to take earlier opportunities for rehabilitation. A further community sentence did not properly reflect the seriousness of the criminal conduct.

5. A four-year term before plea credit was appropriate. Allowing 25 per cent credit for the guilty pleas produced the substituted three-year sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Solicitor General's reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was allowed. The court substituted an immediate custodial sentence.
• Crown Court at Taunton: On 19 December 2019, the offender received concurrent 24-month community orders and an indefinite restraining order.