R v Clive Mercer

A sentence for repeated breaches of a non-molestation order must reflect culpability, harm, the number and persistence of breaches, offending on bail, relevant previous convictions, and the effect on the protected person. Concurrent sentences may properly be imposed where the totality principle is applied. A guilty plea reduces the sentence but does not make a sentence excessive where substantial aggravating features remain. Leave to appeal should be refused where there is no arguable error of principle and the sentence is not manifestly excessive. A restraining order must be obeyed according to its terms, and a further breach may be treated as particularly serious.

The applicant pleaded guilty to five breaches of a non-molestation order made by the Dartford Family Court for the protection of his sister. The breaches occurred between November 2024 and March 2025 and involved attending or remaining outside the complainant’s home. On 11 June 2025, the Crown Court at Woolwich, before Mr Recorder Rankin, imposed five concurrent sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment and made a restraining order lasting until 11 June 2030.

A single judge refused leave to appeal on paper. The applicant renewed the application out of time and sought an extension. The central issues were whether the extension should be granted, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or involved an error of principle, how time spent on remand affected the sentence, and the significance of the restraining order.

1. Extension of time. The court granted the requested 21-day extension to renew the application for leave to appeal.
2. Sentence. The Recorder’s categorisation of culpability as category A and harm as category 2 was appropriate. The sentence properly reflected the persistent disregard of the non-molestation order, five offences within four months, offending on bail, the applicant’s recent history of failures to comply with requirements and orders, and the effect on the complainant and her daughter.
3. For a single offence, the starting point was one year’s imprisonment. The addition of six months for the number of offences and the significant aggravating circumstances, followed by a six-month reduction for the guilty plea, was not excessive. The totality principle had been applied by ordering the sentences to run concurrently.
4. The applicant’s time on remand did not count double, but counted towards the sentence under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 240ZA. His belief that he should already have been released was mistaken.
5. Disposition. It was not arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive or that there had been an error of principle. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
6. The applicant was directed to familiarise himself with and meticulously observe the restraining order. Any breach could lead to imprisonment, and disobedience could be treated as particularly serious because of the present offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted an extension of time to renew the application for leave to appeal, then refused the renewed application because the sentence was neither arguably manifestly excessive nor affected by an error of principle.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: on 11 June 2025, Mr Recorder Rankin imposed five concurrent sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment after guilty pleas and made a restraining order lasting until 11 June 2030.