R v Emma Sushila Inkeri Patel

In sentencing for stalking and other intimidatory offences, culpability factors in the guideline must be read comparatively across the categories. Persistent conduct lasting nearly three months may amount to action over a prolonged period, depending on the circumstances, nature of the conduct and persistence. Planning, research, multiple communication methods and repeated evasion of blocking may support high culpability, and relevant culpability features may be considered in combination. For harm category 2, harm to third parties is not excluded when determining where within the category range the sentence should fall, even if the primary victim’s harm independently establishes the category. Personal mitigation must be included in the judge’s overall assessment before applying any guilty-plea reduction.

The applicant and her mother pleaded guilty at Isleworth Crown Court to stalking involving serious harm or distress. On 17 January 2020, the applicant received 11 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, with requirements. The judge assessed the offence as category 2 harm and category B culpability and selected 14 months before the guilty-plea reduction. A single judge refused leave to appeal.

Before the Court of Appeal, the applicant argued that three months was too short to constitute a prolonged period, that the conduct involved neither high planning nor sophistication, and that 14 months was manifestly excessive because personal mitigation had not been reflected and third-party harm had inflated the sentence. The central issues were the proper application of the guideline and whether the sentence was open to the judge.

1. Disposition. The application for permission to appeal was refused. The sentence therefore stood.
2. Culpability. The culpability factors in the intimidatory offences guideline had to be read alongside the factors in the other categories. A period of nearly three months could, in principle, satisfy the requirement of persistent action over a prolonged period. Whether it did so depended on the circumstances, the nature of the conduct and the nature of the persistence. The judge was entitled to find category B culpability because the conduct involved research, different communication methods, multiple telephone numbers, mobile phones and SIM cards. The relevant features could properly be considered in combination (paras 5–7).
3. Harm and sentence range. Harm category 2 did not in principle exclude harm to relevant third parties. Even if the category was established solely by harm to the principal victim, harm to third parties could be considered when deciding where within the category range to place the sentence. The judge was entitled to place the case towards the higher end of category 2. The 14-month sentence before credit for the guilty plea was within the guideline range, which extended to 18 months (para 11).
4. Mitigation and guilty plea. The judge’s pre-plea figure was the culmination of an evaluative assessment of all relevant features, including personal mitigation. The judge had expressly considered the applicant’s good character, professional position, remorse, treatment, mental health and progress in custody. Describing the figure as a starting point did not establish that mitigation had been ignored. The guilty-plea reduction was then applied to that assessed sentence (paras 9–12).
5. Neither ground was realistically arguable. Permission to appeal was refused (para 13).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The court considered the application against sentence and refused permission to appeal: [2021] EWCA Crim 530.
• Isleworth Crown Court. The applicant was sentenced on 17 January 2020 to 11 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, after the offence was assessed as category 2 harm and category B culpability.