R v Nathan Foster

Sentencing for false imprisonment or kidnapping is highly fact-specific. Relevant considerations include the detention’s length and circumstances, restraint, violence, weapons, threats, impact, planning, number of offenders, torture or humiliation, prior criminality and victim vulnerability. Domestic abuse, particularly in an abusive relationship, is aggravating and may be seriously aggravating. The vulnerability of victims and the impact on children require particular weight. Serious current offending, previous violence and a risk assessment may justify dangerousness and an extended sentence despite an interval since earlier offending. A serious additional count should ordinarily receive a separate concurrent sentence. The appeal was allowed only to clarify one restraining-order prohibition.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Bradford to making threats with a bladed article, damaging property, false imprisonment, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and making a threat to kill. He received an extended sentence of 10 years and a restraining order protecting his former partner. The offending involved prolonged violence and threats in the complainant’s home while their three children were present.

He appealed on grounds concerning dangerousness, the extended sentence, the licence period, the custodial term, and the length and wording of the restraining order. The central issues were whether the sentence and order were legally or manifestly excessive and whether the second prohibition was sufficiently clear.

1. Custodial sentence. The appeal against the sentence for false imprisonment was dismissed. The approach in Attorney-General’s References Nos 92 and 93 of 2014 [2014] EWCA Crim 2713 was important, but cases of this kind are highly fact-specific. Gravity must be assessed by reference to the detention’s length and circumstances, restraint, violence, weapons, threats, effect on victims and others, planning, number of offenders, torture or humiliation, previous criminality and vulnerability.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to adopt a starting point of 8 years and 6 months. Significant aggravating features included the detention in the victim’s home, the locked doors, violence and threats to kill, the involvement and distress of the children, psychological harm, physical injury and humiliation. The domestic context was seriously aggravating. The court applied the approach in R v Bowskill [2022] EWCA Crim 1358 and underlined the importance of vulnerability by reference to R v Stanley [2023] EWCA Crim 275.
3. Dangerousness and licence. The current serious offending, the appellant’s previous violence and the pre-appeal risk assessment entitled the judge to find dangerousness. The interval since the earlier aggravated burglary did not prevent that conclusion. The extended sentence and four-year-four-month licence period were upheld.
4. The court observed that the bladed-article offence should have received a separate concurrent sentence because it was serious in itself. This did not result in a further variation of the sentence.
5. Restraining order. The second prohibition was ambiguous. It was amended so that the 100-metre restriction applied to any other address at which the complainant was known or believed by the appellant to be living or residing. The appeal was allowed only to that extent; all other grounds were dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1578, the appeal was allowed only to amend the wording of the second restraining-order prohibition.
• Crown Court at Bradford: Following guilty pleas, the appellant was sentenced to an extended sentence of 10 years and made subject to a restraining order.