R v Robert Evans

For harassment sentencing, conduct falls within the highest culpability category where the extreme nature of the relevant culpability factors is shown by repeated, prolonged conduct intended to maximise fear or distress. Very serious distress places the harm in Category 1.

When determining the total sentence, the court must give proper effect to associated offences and aggravating features. Repeated breaches of a restraining order, serious violence, theft causing serious emotional harm, recent release from custody and persistent defiance of court orders can require a substantial upward adjustment.

Where the offender is dangerous and the sentence for a specified offence is at least four years, an extended determinate sentence may be imposed.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient a total sentence of three years’ imprisonment imposed in the Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent on 13 September 2023.

The offender had pleaded guilty to breach of a restraining order, harassment putting the victim in fear of violence, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and theft. The offences were committed over four days against a former partner, despite a restraining order and while the offender was subject to home detention curfew after recent imprisonment for earlier offending against the same victim.

The central issues were the proper guideline categorisation of the harassment offence, the total sentence, and whether the court should impose an extended determinate sentence following an unchallenged finding of dangerousness.

1. The court granted leave and held that the total sentence of three years was unduly lenient to a very significant extent. It quashed the individual sentences and substituted an extended determinate sentence of 10 years, comprising a custodial term of seven years and an extended licence period of three years.

2. The harassment offence caused Category 1 harm because it inflicted very serious distress. Its correct culpability classification was Category 1A, rather than Category 1B. The offending displayed to an extreme degree the Culpability B factors of conduct intended to maximise fear or distress and persistent action over a prolonged period. The guideline starting point was therefore five years’ custody, within a range extending to eight years.

3. The court then gave full effect to the remaining offences and aggravation. The repeated breaches of the restraining order, especially after recent convictions for breaches of the same order, substantially aggravated the harassment. The assault was serious violence against the same victim. The theft of the victim’s telephone had deliberately caused serious emotional distress. The offender’s violent history, persistent disobedience of court orders and offending while recently released on licence further aggravated the case.

4. The appropriate sentence for harassment, including the breach of the restraining order, was eight years before guilty-plea credit and six years after the 25 per cent discount. Adding 12 months to reflect the assault and theft produced a seven-year custodial term. The sentences for the other counts remained unchanged but were concurrent.

5. The unchallenged dangerousness finding, together with the seven-year sentence for the specified harassment offence, engaged section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The court therefore imposed the extended determinate sentence to protect women with whom the offender might have relationships, including the victim.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By judgment dated 6 December 2023, [2023] EWCA Crim 1520, the court granted the Solicitor General leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, found the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and imposed an extended determinate sentence of 10 years.
• Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent: On 13 September 2023, Judge Glenn imposed a total sentence of three years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to four offences.