R v Jack Standley

For sentencing under the applicable harassment guideline, conduct occurring on four occasions over ten days may be persistent without amounting to persistent conduct over a prolonged period for Category B culpability. The court must assess harm by reference to the evidence and should not impose a sentence inconsistent with its own categorisation.

Where the offending falls between harm categories, the sentence must reflect the applicable range, aggravating features, credit for a guilty plea and totality. An appellate court may substitute a reduced individual and total sentence where the original sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Great Grimsby to harassment putting a person in fear of violence, contrary to section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and two malicious communications offences involving threats to family members.

He received 18 months’ imprisonment for the harassment offence and concurrent six-month sentences for the communications offences, consecutive to the harassment sentence, making a total of two years. He appealed, with limited leave, on the categorisation and sentence for the harassment offence.

The central issue was whether conduct on four occasions over ten days justified Category B culpability and Category 1 harm under the applicable Sentencing Council guideline.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The total sentence of two years was quashed and replaced by a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.

2. The court accepted that the offending was persistent, but held that four occasions over ten days did not fall within the guideline description of persistent conduct over a prolonged period. The sentencing judge had therefore erred in placing culpability in Category B.

3. On harm, the sentencing judge’s observations showed that he had placed the case between Categories 1 and 2, rather than clearly in Category 1. The Court of Appeal took account of the aggravating features, but concluded that the appropriate sentence for the section 4 offence, after trial, was one year. After credit for the guilty plea, that sentence was reduced to nine months.

4. The concurrent six-month sentences for the malicious communications offences remained unchanged. The original approach to totality, by making those two sentences concurrent with each other, was proper. With the nine-month harassment sentence consecutive to them, the proper total sentence was 15 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentencing appeal to a limited extent and substituted a total sentence of 15 months: [2024] EWCA Crim 1253.
• Crown Court at Great Grimsby: Following guilty pleas, imposed 18 months for harassment and concurrent six-month sentences for two malicious communications offences, producing a total sentence of two years.