R v Gheorghe Badelita

Where an offender’s acquired brain injury has materially affected behaviour and follows a previously blameless life, it may require a significant reduction from an otherwise appropriate custodial sentence. A sentencing judge must not downplay clear evidence of that disability without giving it proper mitigating weight.

A sentence below two years need not be suspended. Immediate custody remains necessary where the seriousness of sustained threats to kill and the psychological harm caused means that appropriate punishment cannot otherwise be achieved.

The appellant was sentenced in the Crown Court at Cambridge after jury verdicts in July 2024. The lead offence was a threat to kill. The Recorder imposed concurrent sentences, producing a total of 28 months’ imprisonment, together with a restraining order and surcharge.

The appellant appealed his sentence with leave. He accepted the offending was correctly categorised and crossed the custody threshold, but contended that insufficient weight had been given to his lack of previous convictions and to the behavioural consequences of strokes in 2021. The court had separately dismissed his appeal against conviction.

The central issues were the proper mitigating effect of the acquired brain injury and whether the reduced custodial term should be suspended.

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The convictions remained safe, but the total sentence of 28 months was manifestly excessive because the Recorder gave inadequate weight to material mitigation.

2. The categorisation of the lead threat-to-kill offence as category B1, with a two-year starting point, was appropriate. The offending as a whole clearly crossed the custody threshold. The Recorder was also entitled to reflect the additional offences and aggravating features when fixing the lead sentence.

3. However, the appellant had no previous convictions despite being in his fifties. The evidence showed that strokes in 2021 had caused a significant acquired brain injury and a substantial change in his behaviour. Although the medical evidence was not definitive and the Recorder could assess the appellant’s presentation at trial, the disability should not have been downplayed. It required a significant mitigating discount.

4. The sentences of 28 months on count 4 and 24 months on count 5 were quashed. Concurrent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment were substituted on those counts. The shorter concurrent sentences on the remaining counts required no alteration.

5. The substituted sentence was to be served immediately. Despite the mitigation and the sentence being below two years, suspension would not provide appropriate punishment for the terrifying and sustained threats, the attempted entry into the property, and the serious psychological harm and distress caused to the victims. The surcharge was reduced to £187; the remaining order was unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the sentences on counts 4 and 5, and substituted concurrent 18-month immediate custodial sentences. The court recorded that it had dismissed the separate appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Cambridge: The Recorder imposed concurrent custodial sentences, with 28 months’ imprisonment on the lead count, producing a total sentence of 28 months.