R v Rajesh Patel

In sentencing domestic-abuse offences, the court may consider the wider context, including cumulative abuse and matters not charged, unless that context is positively inconsistent with the accepted basis of plea. This is necessary to assess aggravation arising from breach of trust and security. A genuine victim’s fear for life may justify placing a threat-to-kill offence towards the higher end of the applicable category. The use of an object as a weapon and the psychological effect of an assault may support a high culpability categorisation. Concurrent sentences, totality and guilty-plea credit must be considered when assessing whether alleged double counting has produced a manifestly excessive sentence.

Following re-arraignment in the Crown Court at Leicester, the appellant pleaded guilty to making a threat to kill, contrary to section 15 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of that Act. He received concurrent sentences totalling two years’ imprisonment. Two further counts remained on file. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted by the single justice. The appellant challenged the starting points, the judge’s consideration of the basis of plea and alleged double counting. The central issues were whether the complainant’s genuine fear and the use of a rubber swimming shoe justified high category 2B starting points, whether the wider domestic context could be considered, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of two years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
2. For the threat to kill, the judge was entitled to accept the complainant’s account that she genuinely feared for her life. He was therefore entitled, and correct, to place the starting point towards the higher end of category 2B. A visible weapon was specifically identified in category A, but such a weapon was not required before the higher category 2B range could be selected. The duration of the attack was also not sufficiently limited to justify lower culpability.
3. For the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the rubber swimming shoe was being used as a weapon. The psychological consequences might have justified categorising the harm as more than minor psychological distress. A starting point at the top end of category 2B was therefore justified.
4. A sentencing judge may consider the broader context in which domestic-abuse offending occurred, and the relevant Guideline required that context to be considered. Domestic abuse is aggravated by the violation of trust and security within an intimate relationship and may comprise cumulative and interlinked abuse. Even where sentence is imposed for one incident and related offences remain on file, the wider context may be considered unless it is positively inconsistent with the accepted basis of plea.
5. The judge was entitled to treat the domestic context, abuse of trust and power, the complainant’s forced departure from her home and the appellant’s previous domestic-violence conviction as aggravating features. The use of the physical violence in assessing the overall criminality did not render the sentence excessive. Concurrent sentences, totality and the 15 per cent guilty-plea reduction provided a significant discount and produced a proportionate sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. [2023] EWCA Crim 911
• Crown Court at Leicester: The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in total, with concurrent sentences for making a threat to kill and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.