REGINA v LIAM KINGSWELL

For an unduly lenient sentence reference, the question is whether the sentence fell outside the reasonable range open to the sentencing judge. The court must assess the applicable sentencing guideline, culpability and harm, aggravating and mitigating features, and the proper guilty-plea reduction. Persistent controlling and coercive behaviour involving violence, serious distress, domestic-abuse history and financial harm may require a substantial increase from the guideline starting point. A judge placing such offending towards the bottom of a broad category must explain the assessment clearly. A guilty plea indicated four days before trial may justify more than the day-of-trial maximum reduction, but not an unsupported 25 per cent reduction.

The defendant pleaded guilty to controlling and coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. The offending involved prolonged domestic abuse, including violence, threats, property damage, financial exploitation and controlling conduct. On 18 March 2022, the Crown Court sitting in Portsmouth imposed 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months, with rehabilitation and programme requirements.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, submitting that it was unduly lenient because the guideline assessment, aggravating factors, guilty-plea reduction and decision to suspend the sentence had been approached incorrectly. The central issue was whether the sentence fell outside the reasonable range open to the sentencing judge.

1. Reference allowed. The sentence was unduly lenient because it fell outside the reasonable range open to the sentencing judge.
2. The offending fell squarely within Category 1A of the relevant controlling and coercive behaviour guideline, with a starting point of two years and six months’ custody. Persistent offending over a prolonged period, multiple methods of control, fear of violence and very serious distress with a substantial adverse effect on the victim moved the assessment upwards within the category.
3. The previous convictions, which demonstrated domestic violence, and the financial debt imposed on the victim were substantial aggravating features. They far outweighed the mitigation. The claimed remorse was not reflected in the pre-sentence report, and that report gave limited support to genuine prospects of rehabilitation.
4. The guilty plea was indicated four days before trial. A reduction greater than the 10 per cent maximum applicable on the day of trial was justified because the victim was notified in advance and did not need to attend court to give evidence. However, there was no reasonable basis for a 25 per cent reduction; the reduction could not exceed 15 per cent.
5. The seriousness of prolonged domestic abuse, identified in the Sentencing Council’s Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse, had not been properly reflected. A sentencing judge who places serious offending towards the lower end of a guideline range must explain clearly how that conclusion has been reached.
6. The appropriate sentence before credit for the plea was three years and three months’ custody. After a 15 per cent reduction, the sentence was 33 months’ imprisonment. The suspended sentence was quashed and an immediate sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment substituted, with automatic release on licence after half the term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2022] EWCA Crim 814, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was given to refer the sentence. The court found it unduly lenient, quashed the sentence and substituted an immediate term of 33 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court sitting in Portsmouth: On 18 March 2022, imposed 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months, with a rehabilitation activity requirement and attendance at the Building Better Relationships programme.