R v Tirminder Singh Lallie

Before imposing immediate custody for an offence which crosses the custody threshold, a sentencing court must consider the available non-immediate alternatives. Where the total term is under two years, this includes considering suspension in accordance with the applicable sentencing guideline. The court should explain why a proposed community order or a suspended sentence is unsuitable.

An immediate custodial sentence may be manifestly excessive where the offender is of good character, the principal assault followed violence initiated by the victim, and an appropriate rehabilitative disposal was available. The proper sentence may remain custodial in length but be suspended, with requirements directed to the offender’s identified rehabilitative needs.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and to using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or provoke unlawful violence, contrary to section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986.

He received immediate consecutive custodial terms totalling 32 weeks after the sentencing judge corrected the sentence at a later hearing. He appealed with leave of the single judge. The principal issue was whether immediate custody was justified, given the pre-sentence report’s proposed community order, the availability of suspension, his good character, and the circumstances of the assault.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentencing judge erred by failing to consider and explain why either of two available alternatives to immediate custody was unsuitable: the community order recommended in the pre-sentence report, or suspension of a custodial term of less than two years. The applicable guideline required consideration of suspension before immediate custody could be imposed.
2. Immediate imprisonment was manifestly excessive. At sentence the appellant was 37, of good character and without previous convictions. The more serious offence occurred after the victim had used the first physical violence. Those matters required the judge to choose between a community order and a suspended sentence, rather than impose immediate custody.
3. The custody threshold was nevertheless passed. A community order was no longer appropriate because the appellant had already served the custodial part of the sentence and had been released on Home Detention Curfew. The court substituted 20 weeks’ imprisonment for the assault and six weeks’ imprisonment for the section 4 offence, consecutively.
4. The substituted terms included reductions for the late pleas and were suspended for 18 months. A 25-day rehabilitation activity requirement was attached. The compensation and other orders were unaffected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 1371, allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted consecutive terms totalling 26 weeks, suspended for 18 months, with a 25-day rehabilitation activity requirement.
• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: On 29 June 2023 imposed immediate imprisonment. At a later hearing on 24 August 2023, the judge corrected the sentence to 26 weeks for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and six consecutive weeks for the section 4 offence, totalling 32 weeks.