CHRISTOPHER LADBROOK v THE QUEEN

Where no offence-specific guideline exists, sentencing should be structured by the Sentencing Council’s general principles, including culpability, harm, statutory purposes and relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Domestic context and conduct intended to maximise fear or distress may materially increase seriousness. Consecutive sentences remain permissible for distinct offences separated in time, but the totality principle must be applied. Credit for a guilty plea depends on when the intention to plead guilty was indicated, not simply when the plea was entered. For a lesser or different offence, the court must examine when that allegation became clearly identifiable as part of the prosecution case.

The appellant appealed, with leave, against an aggregate sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court at Portsmouth for assault by beating and two malicious communications offences. The original charges of controlling and coercive behaviour and a further assault were not pursued after the appellant pleaded guilty to new counts. The appeal challenged the length and concurrency of the sentences, totality, mitigation and credit for guilty pleas. The central issues were the appropriate sentence for offences without a specific guideline and the reduction available where the relevant offences were added to the indictment shortly before trial.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the consecutive eight-month sentence on count 5 and substituted a consecutive sentence of four months. The sentences on counts 3 and 4 remained unchanged, reducing the total term from 16 to 12 months. The statutory surcharge was unaffected.
2. For malicious communications offences without an offence-specific guideline, the Sentencing Council’s General guideline requires consideration of the statutory maximum, relevant decisions of the Court of Appeal, definitive guidelines for analogous offences, culpability, harm, the statutory purposes of sentencing, and aggravating and mitigating factors. The guideline for improper use of a public electronic communications network provided little assistance because it concerned a different summary-only offence with a lower maximum penalty.
3. The messages were intended to maximise fear or distress and therefore justified a high assessment of culpability. The domestic context was a serious aggravating factor because domestic abuse violates the trust and security ordinarily existing within a family relationship. The involvement of very young children also aggravated the offending. Significant personal mitigation and the fact that the prosecution proceeded only on discrete offences required proper weight.
4. There was no error in imposing consecutive sentences for offences committed about 18 months apart. Nevertheless, the judge had insufficiently reflected both the mitigation and totality. The appropriate aggregate sentence after trial was 15 months’ imprisonment.
5. Under section 73 of the Sentencing Code and the guilty plea guideline, the relevant time is when the intention to plead guilty is indicated, rather than when the plea is formally entered. Where a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser or different offence, the court must assess when that offence was clearly identified as part of the prosecution case. Immediate pleas to newly added counts do not automatically attract full credit.
6. The allegations underlying counts 3–5 had been clear from the prosecution case summary, served evidence and chronology long before the indictment was amended. The appellant’s indication shortly before trial produced few of the benefits of an early plea. A reduction of about 15 per cent was appropriate, with the resulting term rounded down to 12 months.

• Crown Court at Portsmouth: on 30 September 2021 imposed an aggregate sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment after guilty pleas to assault by beating and two malicious communications offences.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal in part and reduced the aggregate sentence to 12 months’ imprisonment.