R v Jaiganesh Ashok-Kumar

An extended sentence must not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence. A sentence which exceeds that limit is unlawful and must be corrected.

The dangerousness test in the Sentencing Act 2020 can be met where the significant risk of serious harm is to a single person. Totality does not prevent consecutive sentences for distinct domestic-abuse offences where concurrent terms would fail to reflect the overall criminality. In a proven pattern of domestic abuse, positive good character outside the relationship will generally carry no weight.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Cambridge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, controlling or coercive behaviour, intentional strangulation and intentional suffocation, committed against his wife.

The judge imposed an extended sentence of seven years on the assault count, comprising four years’ custody and a three-year licence extension, consecutive to two years’ imprisonment for the controlling-or-coercive-behaviour count. The remaining two-year sentences were concurrent.

The applicant sought permission to appeal on the grounds that the extended sentence was unlawful, dangerousness had been wrongly found, and the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issues were the statutory maximum for an extended sentence, risk to a sole victim, and totality where the indictment charged distinct episodes of domestic abuse.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The extended sentence on count 1 was unlawful. By section 281(5) of the Sentencing Act 2020, an extended sentence cannot exceed the maximum term of imprisonment for the offence. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm carried a five-year maximum. The court therefore quashed the seven-year extended sentence and substituted an extended sentence of five years, comprising four years’ custody and one year’s extended licence.

2. The court refused leave to appeal against the finding of dangerousness. The statutory test of significant risk to members of the public under section 280(1)(b) was capable of applying where the person at risk was the applicant’s wife alone. The trial judge had heard the evidence, had a detailed pre-sentence report, and was entitled to find a very high risk of serious harm to the victim. He was also entitled to conclude that an extended licence period was necessary for her protection.

3. The court rejected the totality challenge. A court may impose an extended sentence consecutively to a determinate sentence. Totality requires an overall sentence reflecting the offending as a whole; it does not require concurrency. The counts represented distinct criminal conduct, and the totality guideline identified domestic-abuse offences against the same person as an example where consecutive terms will ordinarily be appropriate if concurrent terms would not sufficiently reflect overall criminality.

4. The remaining mitigation did not render the sentence excessive. The judge had taken account of the absence of previous convictions. Under the domestic-abuse guideline, good character outside the offending generally has no relevance where there is a proven pattern of abusive conduct. The victim surcharge was corrected from £190 to £120. All other elements of the sentence remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2024] EWCA Crim 996, granted leave and allowed the appeal only on the unlawfulness of the extended sentence; it refused leave on the dangerousness and excessiveness grounds.
• Crown Court at Cambridge — on 21 June 2023, convicted the applicant of four offences against his wife. On 28 September 2023, imposed an overall sentence of six years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period.