R v Christopher Francis Greenwood

Sentencing must remain proportionate to the applicable offence guideline, even where serious aggravating features are present. A sentence substantially exceeding the guideline range may be manifestly excessive; here, a sentence three times the range’s upper limit was excessive. A separate reason making imprisonment appropriate, such as return to custody following breach of an IPP licence, does not justify an disproportionate sentence for the new offence.

After a jury trial at the Crown Court at Chester, the appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. At a subsequent slip-rule hearing, the sentence was ordered to run concurrently with an existing imprisonment for public protection sentence. The appellant appealed against sentence with leave, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive when compared with the applicable category 3B sexual assault guideline and the identified aggravating features. The central issue was whether those features justified the substantial increase above the guideline range.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence.

1. Guideline range and aggravating features. The court accepted that the appellant’s serious offending record, the location of the offence in the complainant’s family home, his drinking, and the abuse of trust were aggravating features. However, the applicable category 3B guideline had a medium-level community order as its starting point and six months’ custody as the top of the range. Even making full allowance for the aggravating features, a sentence of 18 months was three times the upper limit and was manifestly excessive.
2. Custody. The court would have queried whether the offence crossed the custody threshold. Imprisonment was nevertheless conceded to be appropriate because the appellant had been returned to prison following breach of the licence provisions attached to his IPP sentence. That circumstance justified custody but did not justify the length of the sentence imposed for the sexual assault.
3. Order. The sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was quashed. A sentence of 13 weeks’ imprisonment was substituted. The court agreed that no pre-sentence report was necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was allowed and the 18-month sentence was quashed and replaced with 13 weeks’ imprisonment: [2024] EWCA Crim 1611.
• Crown Court at Chester: Following conviction for sexual assault, the appellant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, later ordered to run concurrently with an existing IPP sentence.