R v Stuart Bell

In an appeal against sentence, the appellate court may correct the record where a post-commencement breach of a restraining order was charged under a repealed provision, if transitional saving provisions preserve the validity of the proceedings. Sentencing must reflect the accepted factual basis of the offence. The absence of financial loss and of a comparable breach of trust may make a forgery sentencing benchmark materially distinguishable. Whether stalking is persistent and causes very serious distress is a matter of judicial assessment informed by the evidence. Consecutive sentences for distinct offences remain permissible, but the aggregate sentence must satisfy totality and be just and proportionate. The total term was reduced to three years.

The appellant pleaded guilty to stalking, breach of a restraining order, attempting to pervert the course of public justice and forgery. The Crown Court at Teesside imposed an aggregate sentence of four years and four months’ imprisonment. A Full Court granted leave to appeal after questioning whether the Crown Court sentence overlapped with an earlier sentence imposed by the magistrates. Further information established that the earlier offence concerned a different period.

The appellant challenged the categorisation of the stalking offence, the sentence for forgery, the treatment of his previous convictions and the aggregate sentence. The central issues were whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and whether the principle of totality had been observed.

1. Correction of count 3. The court applied R v Jowett [2022] EWCA Crim 629. Following the repeal of section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a breach committed after the commencement of the Sentencing Act 2020 was properly charged under section 363(1) of that Act. Transitional saving provisions preserved the validity of the proceedings. The record was therefore corrected.
2. Suspended sentence. The court activated the 24-week suspended sentence order. Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 required the court to ensure that the appeal did not make the sentence more severe. The activated term was made concurrent with the other sentences.
3. Stalking. The assessment of persistence and harm was a matter of judicial assessment informed by common sense and the evidence of the complainant’s impact. The conduct properly fell within category 1B of the Definitive Guideline, rather than category 2, but towards the lower end of that category. The sentence was reduced from 32 months to 22 months.
4. Forgery. The sentence had to reflect the factual basis that the forgery caused no financial loss and concerned the transfer of property ultimately completed with the parties’ knowledge and consent. The court distinguished R v Cano-Uribe [2015] EWCA Crim 1824, because that case involved a breach of trust. Four months, rather than ten months, was appropriate.
5. Totality and disposal. The sentence for attempting to pervert the course of justice was appropriate. Consecutive sentences were permissible because the offences were separate and distinct, provided the aggregate sentence was just and proportionate. The stalking and forgery sentences were quashed and substituted. The total sentence became three years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on 26 July 2024, corrected the statutory basis of count 3, activated the suspended sentence concurrently, reduced the stalking and forgery sentences, and substituted an aggregate sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Full Court: on 14 May 2024, granted leave to appeal because possible overlap with an earlier sentence required clarification.
• Crown Court at Teesside: on 5 June 2023, imposed an aggregate sentence of four years and four months’ imprisonment.
• Magistrates’ Court: on 25 November 2020, imposed an earlier suspended sentence for harassment covering a different period and made a restraining order.