Jamie Macklin v R

Sentencing guidelines guide the exercise of discretion but do not prevent a court from imposing a sentence outside their range where the offence’s overall gravity justifies it. A sentence approaching the statutory maximum may be justified in a rare and exceptionally grave case.

In assessing harm from an assault, the court may take account of a victim’s enduring belief that the assault caused a later loss, even where the evidence does not establish legal causation of that loss. There is no improper double counting where a known pregnancy informs both culpability and the overall assessment that the case exceeds the guideline range.

The appellant was convicted after a summary trial of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and committed to the Crown Court at Wood Green for sentence. On 13 February 2024, the Crown Court imposed four years and eight months’ imprisonment.

The sustained assault was upon the appellant’s former partner, who was pregnant. It involved repeated blows, including to her abdomen, and occurred in the presence of her nine-year-old son. She miscarried approximately two weeks later.

The appellant appealed, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive. He challenged the judge’s treatment of the miscarriage, alleged double counting of the pregnancy, and relied on mitigation and the age of an earlier conviction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of four years and eight months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
2. The evidence did not establish that the assault caused the miscarriage; if it had, the appellant would have faced a charge of child destruction. That absence of proof was of limited relevance to sentence for the assault. The attack was deliberately directed at the victim’s abdomen, with an intention to harm her baby. Her belief that the assault caused her loss was a legitimate and major component of its lasting impact upon her.
3. There was no improper double counting. The victim’s known pregnancy properly informed the assessment of high culpability, while the despicable and persistent nature of the attack, its duration, planning, abusive context, and the harm caused justified a sentence beyond the guideline range.
4. Sentencing guidelines are only guidelines. The judge was entitled to depart from them for the reasons given. The earlier conviction for harassment and arson, though from 2006, remained relevant because the present offending showed little change in the appellant’s attitude towards former partners.
5. The five-year maximum sentence necessarily contemplates rare offences warranting a sentence at or near that maximum. This sustained, jealous and violent assault, committed in the presence of a child and with devastating consequences for the victim, was capable of falling within that exceptional category.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appellant’s sentence appeal: [2024] EWCA Crim 1159.
• Crown Court at Wood Green — on 13 February 2024, imposed four years and eight months’ imprisonment following committal for sentence after conviction at summary trial.
• Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court — convicted the appellant after summary trial of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and committed him to the Crown Court for sentence.