R v Andrew Hodgetts

For sentencing stalking, high culpability may be established by persistence over a long period and a high degree of planning. A gap in conduct does not necessarily defeat persistence. Mental disorder reduces culpability only where there is a sufficient connection between impairment and offending, requiring evidence that thinking was impaired rather than merely that mental health explained the behaviour. Mental state may nevertheless provide mitigation. High harm may be shown by very serious distress, anxiety and lifestyle changes. Closely connected offending against more than one complainant may be reflected in the lead sentence. Breach of bail may aggravate sentence without double-counting. Strong mitigation may justify retaining the guideline starting point, but immediate custody can remain necessary where recent risk and poor compliance with court orders are shown.

After guilty pleas, the appellant was sentenced at Woolwich Crown Court on 13 March 2024 to 27 months’ imprisonment for stalking involving fear of violence, serious harm or distress, contrary to section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. A concurrent three-month sentence was imposed for the lesser stalking offence under section 2A. The offending involved the appellant’s former partner and her new partner, repeated intrusions over several months, and breaches of bail.

The appellant appealed on grounds including culpability, mental health, harm, multiple complainants, bail aggravation, mitigation and suspension. The central issues were whether the offending was correctly placed in Category B1 and whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of 27 months was quashed as manifestly excessive and replaced by 22 months’ imprisonment. The concurrent sentence on the other count was not disturbed.
2. Culpability and harm. Category B1 of the relevant stalking guideline requires high culpability and high harm. Persistence over a long period and a high degree of planning justified the high-culpability assessment. A gap in the offending did not negate persistence, particularly as the conduct resumed and became more extreme. The evidence also established very serious distress, real anxiety and lifestyle changes made by the complainants to avoid the appellant, supporting the high-harm assessment.
3. Mental health. Culpability is reduced only where there is a sufficient connection between the offender’s impairment and the offending. The relevant inquiry focuses on whether the defendant’s thinking was impaired, rather than merely whether mental health formed part of the context or explanation. The evidence did not establish that connection. Nevertheless, there was a material connection between the appellant’s mental state and the offending which constituted strong mitigation, although it did not reduce culpability.
4. Aggravation and totality. The court could reflect offending against both closely connected complainants in the sentence for the lead count, with a concurrent sentence for the other count. Multiple breaches of bail were a statutory aggravating factor and had not been double-counted.
5. Sentence. The aggravating features did not outweigh the appellant’s strong personal, medical, family and rehabilitative mitigation. The appropriate notional sentence before plea credit was about 30 months, rather than 36 months. Applying the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction produced 22 months. Suspension was refused because immediate custody was necessary for punishment, having regard to poor compliance with court orders and the recent risk presented to the complainants, despite the prospect of rehabilitation and the impact on the appellant’s family.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1284, allowed the appeal, quashed the 27-month sentence and substituted 22 months’ imprisonment.
• Woolwich Crown Court: On 13 March 2024, imposed 27 months’ imprisonment for the lead stalking offence and a concurrent three-month sentence for the other offence.