R v Jordan Jeffries

On a reference alleging undue leniency, the Court of Appeal will not interfere merely because other judges might have imposed a higher sentence. Where the sentencing judge identifies the correct guideline category and makes evaluative adjustments for aggravating features, background and totality, the sentence is not unduly lenient unless that conclusion can properly be reached. Background animosity may be taken into account where proved on the balance of probabilities, but it does not reduce the offender’s responsibility for the offending. In cases involving activation of a suspended sentence, a reduction for totality may still be appropriate even where full activation might otherwise be expected. The assessment of such adjustments is principally for the sentencing judge.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence imposed on Jordan Jeffries under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The reference followed his guilty pleas in the Crown Court at Preston to burglary and witness intimidation arising from a violent entry into a woman’s home and subsequent threatening messages. The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment, including consecutive sentences adjusted for totality and partial activation of earlier suspended sentences. The reference challenged the starting points for burglary and intimidation, the totality adjustment and the extent of activation. The central issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient.

1. Reference refused. The court refused leave for the Attorney General’s Reference. The sentence was not unduly lenient.
2. The sentencing judge had correctly categorised the burglary offences under the applicable guideline. Although other judges might have increased the sentence for the aggravating factors, it was impossible to say that the burglary sentence was unduly lenient.
3. The judge had also identified the correct category for intimidation. The reduction to 16 months before credit for the guilty plea was generous, but the judge was entitled to take account of the proved background animosity. The court did not attribute blame between the parties beyond the offender’s responsibility for the offences. Such evaluative adjustments are matters which sentencing judges are best placed to assess.
4. In relation to the suspended sentences, the complaint concerned activation of eight weeks rather than 12 weeks. Although many judges would have activated the full 12 weeks, a reduction for totality would still have been required. The additional eight-week sentence could not itself be described as unduly lenient.
5. The court therefore left the aggregate sentence of three years and four months undisturbed and refused leave for the reference.

• Crown Court at Preston: On 5 September 2024, the offender was sentenced to an aggregate term of three years and four months’ imprisonment for burglary, intimidation and breaches of suspended sentences. A slip-rule hearing on 11 October 2024 left the overall sentence unchanged.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Leave was refused.