R v Pavell Raussul

When sentencing for breach of a community order, the court must assess the offender’s overall compliance, not merely the individual failures. It must consider engagement with the order, work completed, the effect of completed requirements, the timing of the breach, and relevant circumstances that impeded compliance.

Where compliance has otherwise been high, a curfew imposed to mark the breach should ordinarily reflect the guideline range. A materially more severe curfew requires a case-specific justification. Frustration at avoidable demands on probation resources does not, without more, justify a manifestly excessive penalty.

The appellant had received a 12-month community order for assault by beating, including 100 hours of unpaid work and up to six rehabilitation activity sessions. He failed to attend appointments while on holiday and later failed to attend a further unpaid-work appointment. He admitted breach proceedings, and the Crown Court added a four-week electronically monitored curfew to the order.

By the breach hearing, he had completed 88 hours of unpaid work and had attended seven rehabilitation sessions. He appealed against sentence, contending that the added curfew was manifestly excessive given his general compliance. The central issue was the proper weight to be given to the extent of compliance under the Sentencing Council guideline for breach of a community order.

1. Appeal allowed. The four-week electronically monitored curfew added for breach of the community order was manifestly excessive. It was replaced by a 10-day curfew, from 7 pm to 7 am; that requirement had already been completed and was therefore at an end.

2. The Sentencing Council definitive guideline required the court to assess the extent of compliance with the community order. That assessment includes the offender’s overall attitude and engagement, the proportion of requirements completed, the effect of completed requirements, the timing of the breach, and relevant circumstances or characteristics that impeded compliance.

3. The appellant’s failures were deliberate and did not have a valid excuse. They caused avoidable expenditure of public time and money. However, they occurred during a defined period, there was no evidence of reoffending, and the appellant had completed nearly all the unpaid work and more rehabilitation sessions than required.

4. The breach should therefore have been treated as one involving a high level of compliance apart from the breaches themselves. The guideline indicated that, if a curfew was added in such circumstances, a period of between six and 10 days was appropriate.

5. There was no feature requiring a more severe sanction. The sentencing judge’s understandable frustration with the appellant’s conduct could not justify a four-week curfew.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — appeal against sentence allowed: [2024] EWCA Crim 1029.
• Crown Court — the appellant received a 12-month community order on 14 February 2024 and, after admitting breach on 30 July 2024, was made subject to a four-week electronically monitored curfew. The judgment text identifies the sentencing court as Plymouth, while the cover sheet identifies Portsmouth.