R v Christine Julie Hands

When sentencing an attempted offence that falls between guideline categories, the court must assess the relevant category range, allow for how far the offending proceeded and for the fact of the attempt, then consider aggravating and mitigating features, guilty-plea credit and totality. Mental disorder may be significant mitigation where sufficiently connected to the offending. A restraining order may remain necessary and proportionate despite a long period without further offending if the offending history and relevant risk factors justify protection. The sentence for attempted arson was reduced, while the restraining order was upheld.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Canterbury Crown Court to stalking involving fear of violence and attempted arson. She received consecutive sentences of 20 months’ imprisonment for each offence and a five-year restraining order. She appealed against sentence, contending that the sentence for attempted arson was excessive, that insufficient weight had been given to her personal mitigation, the age of the offences and totality, and that the restraining order was unnecessary because there had been no recent offending. The central issues were the proper sentence for the attempted arson and whether the restraining order remained necessary and proportionate.

The appeal was allowed in part.

1. Restraining order. The order was properly made and remained necessary and proportionate. Although the immediate reason for keeping the appellant away from the complainant while proceedings were pending had ended, the offending background, the appellant’s mental health conditions and her alcohol abuse justified continuing protection.
2. Attempted arson. The offence fell between Categories B2 and B3 of the applicable guideline. The court had to take account of the relevant category ranges, the fact that the matter had not proceeded far and the fact that the offence was one of attempt. A sentence in the order of two years before aggravating and mitigating features was initially appropriate.
3. The offence was aggravated because it was committed after the appellant had been released under investigation. Significant mitigation arose from her mental disorder, which had a sufficient connection with the offending, and from the absence of previous convictions. The appropriate sentence was 18 months before credit for plea, 15 months after 15 per cent credit, and 12 months after adjustment for totality.
4. Totality. The aggregate sentence had to be just and proportionate for all the offending. The existing 20-month sentence for stalking had already reflected totality, and a consecutive 12-month sentence for attempted arson produced a just and proportionate total of 32 months.
5. The 20-month sentence for attempted arson was quashed and replaced by a consecutive 12-month sentence. The court also imposed the statutory surcharge of £181, which had been omitted below, without dealing with the appellant more severely overall.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1476, the sentence for attempted arson was reduced from 20 months to 12 months consecutively, producing a total sentence of 32 months. The restraining order was upheld and a statutory surcharge of £181 was imposed.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: The appellant pleaded guilty to stalking involving fear of violence and attempted arson. On 10 May 2024, she was sentenced to consecutive terms of 20 months’ imprisonment and made subject to a five-year restraining order.