R v Arthur McDonagh

A sentencing judge should ordinarily identify the relevant sentencing guideline and the credit allowed for a guilty plea. A failure to do so will not make a sentence manifestly excessive where the judge has identified the custody threshold and the material culpability, harm and aggravating features, and the appellate court can verify that the sentence falls within the applicable guideline range.

Threatening a service provider with an axe may properly be treated as high culpability and serious harm where the victim feared serious violence. A short custodial sentence, suspended for 12 months, was proportionate after allowing the limited credit due for a guilty plea entered on the day of sentence.

R v Arthur McDonagh concerned an application for leave to appeal against sentence. At the Crown Court at Leicester on 2 February 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to using threatening words or behaviour with intent to cause fear of violence, contrary to section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Following a dispute over payment for gas-hob installation work, he picked up and waved an axe while pursuing the gas engineer from his property. The sentencing judge imposed two months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, with compensation and costs. The applicant contended that the judge had not referred to the relevant guideline or stated the reduction for his guilty plea, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence of two months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, was not arguably manifestly excessive.
2. Although the sentencing remarks were brief, the judge should preferably have referred expressly to the relevant sentencing guideline and identified the reduction for the guilty plea. Those omissions did not undermine the sentence. The judge had identified that the custody threshold was crossed, the production of a weapon, the victim’s fear of violence, the victim’s provision of a public service, and the presence of children.
3. The offence involved high culpability because the applicant produced an axe. Harm fell within Category 1 because the victim clearly feared serious violence. The applicable starting point was a high-level community order and the range extended to 26 weeks’ custody. Even on the applicant’s proposed Category 2 assessment of harm, the range extended to 12 weeks’ custody.
4. The fact that the victim was providing a service to the public was an aggravating feature. The court also considered that children had observed at least part of the event. The applicant’s previous convictions did not materially aggravate the offence, but did mean that he could not be treated as having no previous convictions.
5. A pre-credit sentence of about 10 to 12 weeks’ custody was within the applicable range. As the guilty plea was entered on the day and had not previously been indicated, the applicant would have received only a 10 per cent reduction. The resulting suspended sentence was therefore proportionate and justified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In R v Arthur McDonagh, [2023] EWCA Crim 778, the court refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Leicester: On 2 February 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 and received two months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.