R v Thomas Christopher Bond

Whether to suspend a custodial sentence requires an evaluative judgment. Relevant factors must be weighed, but the exercise is not a numerical comparison and no formulaic analysis is required. A sentencing court may conclude that immediate custody is necessary where proper punishment cannot otherwise be achieved.

A very high prison population is a relevant factor when deciding whether custody should be immediate or suspended. It does not require short custodial terms to be suspended. An appellate court will not lightly interfere with that evaluative decision. The appellant must show that it was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Wigan Magistrates’ Court to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was committed to the Crown Court at Bolton and, on 11 January 2024, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment after a one-third reduction for his early guilty plea.

The assault involved an unprovoked punch, a further blow while the complainant was defenceless on the floor, and significant facial injuries. The Recorder placed the offence in culpability category B and harm category 2. The appellant appealed only against the decision not to suspend the sentence. He relied on remorse, delay in charge, alcohol treatment, ADHD and the high prison population.

The central issue was whether the Recorder’s decision that appropriate punishment required immediate custody was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Appeal dismissed. The six-month sentence of immediate imprisonment was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
2. The decision whether to suspend a custodial sentence is an evaluative judgment. Relevant factors must be weighed, but the exercise is not formulaic or arithmetical. A sentencing judge may conclude that a single weighty factor, assessed with all the circumstances, means that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody.
3. The Recorder was entitled to treat the appellant’s record as seriously aggravating. He was also entitled to give reduced weight to the ADHD diagnosis. The assault was not an immediate spontaneous response to the complainant’s remark, and the appellant continued the attack after the first blow.
4. A high prison population is a relevant consideration when deciding whether custody should be immediate or suspended. It does not mean that every short custodial sentence must be suspended. Although the Recorder did not expressly mention it in the sentencing remarks, it had been advanced in mitigation and there was no basis to doubt that he had taken it into account.
5. The Recorder had expressly considered the proposed community-order alternatives. His conclusion that the shortest sentence commensurate with the offence was six months’ imprisonment, and that it could not be suspended, comfortably fell within the proper range of sentencing judgment. The court would not interfere.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against sentence dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 406.
• Crown Court at Bolton: on 11 January 2024, imposed six months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm; the sentencing decision not to suspend the term was upheld.
• Wigan Magistrates’ Court: on 31 October 2023, the appellant pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence on 5 December 2023.