R v Dalton Jefferies

In an Attorney General’s reference against an allegedly unduly lenient sentence, the Court of Appeal held that the absence of an express reference to the domestic abuse guideline is not an error where the sentencing judge has properly addressed the domestic context and its significance. Concurrent sentences may be appropriate where offences substantially overlap and arise from the same course of domestic abuse. The question is whether the total sentence reflects the whole criminality and remains within the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. A sentence may be lenient without being unduly lenient. Leave to refer the sentence was refused.

The offender pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Caernarfon to cruelty to a person under 16, contrary to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, and controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, contrary to the Serious Crime Act 2015. The Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences of 15 months and two years and six months’ imprisonment, together with a 20-year restraining order.

The Attorney General, by reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, argued that consecutive sentences or a longer lead sentence were required. The central issue was whether the sentence, although lenient, was outside the permissible range and therefore unduly lenient.

1. Domestic abuse guideline. The offence-specific guideline for controlling or coercive behaviour directed sentencers to the overarching domestic abuse guideline where the offence was committed in a domestic context. The omission of an express reference to that overarching guideline was not an error. The domestic context was integral to the controlling or coercive behaviour offence, and the judge’s sentencing remarks showed that he had treated the physical and psychological abuse of the mother and child in their home as central to the exercise.
2. The domestic abuse guideline recognised that a child who sees, hears or experiences the effects of abuse directed at a related primary victim may itself be a victim of domestic abuse. The child cruelty offence also occurred within the domestic context. The judge had therefore properly taken that context into account in relation to both counts.
3. There was no error of principle in treating the controlling or coercive behaviour count as the lead offence and imposing concurrent sentences. The offences substantially overlapped: the conduct was inflicted on the mother and child, often simultaneously and usually in their home. The totality principle required the court to consider whether the overall sentence was fair and just for the combined criminality, rather than simply adding the sentences together.
4. The sentence was lenient but was not outside the range reasonably open to a judge who considered all relevant factors. The judge had increased the sentence before mitigation to reflect the two offences and aggravating features, including drug use, and had then given significant mitigation for youth, immaturity, mental health problems and the absence of previous convictions. The Court of Appeal refused leave to refer the sentence. The application was dismissed.

• Crown Court at Mold: The offender pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Caernarfon and was sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 months’ imprisonment and two years and six months’ imprisonment, with a 20-year restraining order.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2023] EWCA Crim 21: On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was refused and the application was dismissed.