R v Thomas Noakes

In sentencing for stalking involving fear of violence, harm must be assessed by weighing all the factors of the case. Category 1 is available where the offending causes very serious distress, significant psychological harm, or considerable lifestyle changes to avoid contact. Repeated and highly threatening communications over a prolonged period may meet that threshold. Where the sentencing judge has applied the relevant guidelines and reached a sentence that is neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle, the appellate court will not interfere. The same approach applies to the decision whether immediate custody is necessary, provided the sentencing judge has properly considered the imposition guideline.

The appellant appealed against a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court at Northampton for stalking involving fear of violence. The offending followed the breakdown of a 14-year relationship and included prolonged abusive messages, threats to kill the complainant and prospective partners, and references to weapons. The sentencing judge placed the harm in category 1, rather than category 2, and ordered immediate custody. The appeal challenged both the harm categorisation and the refusal to suspend the sentence.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. Harm categorisation. The stalking guideline requires the court to assess harm by weighing all the factors of the case. Category 1 includes very serious distress, significant psychological harm, or considerable changes to the victim’s lifestyle to avoid contact. Category 2 applies where the distress, psychological harm or lifestyle changes are less serious.
2. The complainant’s Victim Impact Statement was not wholly directed to the stalking, because it also addressed the breakdown of the relationship and an abandoned controlling and coercive behaviour charge. Nevertheless, it described significant effects attributable to the stalking, including anxiety, weight loss, interrupted sleep, fear of remaining at home or going out, and fear of looking at her phone.
3. The appellant’s communications showed a high level of abuse over many months and contained repeated threats of serious violence. The threats concerning an air rifle and a chainsaw reinforced the seriousness of the conduct. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the effect on the complainant crossed the threshold of very serious distress in category 1.
4. On that basis, the judge’s notional sentence after trial was approximately 32 months, within the applicable range. The 24-month sentence after credit for the guilty plea was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
5. The judge had considered the imposition guideline and concluded that appropriate punishment could be achieved only by immediate custody. There was no basis for disturbing that assessment. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed on 26 November 2024: [2024] EWCA Crim 1507.
2. Crown Court at Northampton: On 2 October 2024, the appellant was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment for stalking involving fear of violence.