Pearce, R. v

In sentencing for controlling or coercive behaviour, harm must be assessed by weighing all the circumstances. The court may draw a common-sense inference that the victim feared violence from admitted particulars, particularly where the offending forms a prolonged pattern involving threats or physical abuse and causes serious alarm or distress. A sentencing court must not sentence on a disputed and unproven allegation, but may take relevant background and proven previous offending into account as aggravating features. On appeal, an acknowledged sentencing error does not require intervention where its impact is unclear and the remaining aggravating and mitigating factors support a sentence that is not manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Stoke on Trent to controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, contrary to section 76(1) and (11) of the Serious Crime Act 2015. He received 30 months’ imprisonment and a ten-year restraining order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He appealed against sentence, arguing that the judge had relied on a disputed and unproven pre-indictment incident involving injury to the victim’s leg, and had wrongly categorised the harm as greater harm without psychological evidence. The central issues were whether those errors occurred and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Appeal dismissed. It was wrong in principle to sentence the appellant by reference to a disputed and unproven incident involving injury to the victim’s leg. However, the sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

1. The level of harm had to be assessed by weighing all the factors. The court was entitled to draw a common-sense inference from the admitted particulars that the victim had been caused to fear violence. The offending involved a prolonged pattern or continuum, threats of violence, physical abuse, property damage, threats of suicide and threats to family members. The evidence of serious alarm and distress, including anorexia, supported category 1 harm.
2. The disputed leg-injury incident could not properly be used as a basis for sentence. The background to the index offending was nevertheless relevant and could be taken into account as an aggravating feature. The appellant also had a relevant record, including a conviction for domestic battery.
3. The category 1A guideline starting point was 30 months’ custody, with a range of one to four years. Multiple higher-culpability factors, persistent offending, the use of several controlling methods and the relevant record justified an increase before credit for the guilty plea. The impact of the pandemic on prison conditions had been taken into account in accordance with R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592. Although it was unclear how far the disputed incident had influenced the judge, the adjusted sentence of 40 months before guilty-plea credit was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2021] EWCA Crim 466: dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Stoke on Trent — 11 November 2020: convicted the appellant on his guilty plea and imposed 30 months’ imprisonment together with a ten-year restraining order under section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.