R v Rhys Phillips

In a sentence appeal, inadequate sentencing remarks do not of themselves establish that a sentence is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The appellate court must assess the sentence actually imposed.

Where concurrent terms are imposed for separate offending, the overall custodial term may reflect both offences. A sentence within the applicable guideline range for the principal offence, allowing only a modest uplift for a further serious offence, will not be excessive merely because the judge did not explain that structure adequately.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Norwich to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and to acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice. The assault was committed against his 16-year-old girlfriend. While on remand, he contacted her and used threats to try to dissuade her from giving evidence.

Mr Recorder Paul Garlick KC imposed 30 months’ imprisonment for the assault and a concurrent term of 12 months for perverting the course of justice. The applicant renewed, after refusal by the single judge, his application for leave to appeal against sentence and for a representation order. He contended that the starting points and resulting sentences were manifestly excessive.

1. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court agreed with and adopted the single judge’s reasons. There was no properly arguable ground that the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

2. The Recorder’s sentencing remarks were inadequate. They did not identify the guideline category for the assault, the aggravating and mitigating features, the guilty-plea reduction, or the adjustment made to reflect the separate offence of perverting the course of justice. That deficiency did not itself make the appeal arguable. The decisive question remained whether the sentence imposed was in fact wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

3. The assault was properly treated as a Category 1A offence under the applicable sentencing guideline. It was sustained, committed against an obviously vulnerable complainant, aggravated by its domestic-abuse context and the applicant’s record, and had a substantial impact despite the relatively limited physical injuries. A sentence after trial could not properly have been below three years.

4. Even allowing the asserted 20% credit for the guilty plea, the sentence for the assault alone would have been at least 28 months. The overall sentence of 30 months was within the guideline range for that offence and incorporated, at most, a modest uplift for the separate and serious attempt to pervert the course of justice. A concurrent term of 12 months for that offence therefore did not render the aggregate sentence excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

• Crown Court at Norwich: Mr Recorder Paul Garlick KC imposed 30 months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and 12 months’ imprisonment concurrently for acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice.