R v Mark Fuller

In a sentence appeal, failure to refer expressly to totality does not itself require a reduction. The appellate question is whether, standing back, the overall sentence is manifestly excessive. Where one incident involves multiple victims, concurrent or consecutive sentences may both be available; the court must assess the total sentence in the light of the distinct criminality and the incident as a whole. The suspension exercise requires judgmental balancing, not a numerical tally of factors. Immediate custody for punishment is important but is not decisive in every case. Rehabilitation, risk, compliance, personal mitigation and the effect of custody must be weighed on the evidence. A mental health issue unconnected with offending may mitigate where custody will bear more heavily, but evidence is required.

After pleading guilty at Crawley Magistrates’ Court, the appellant was committed for sentence under sections 14 and 20 of the Sentencing Act 2020. At the Crown Court at Lewes he received an aggregate sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment for two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one offence of criminal damage under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

He appealed against sentence, challenging the categorisation of harm, the treatment of mitigation, the use of consecutive sentences and totality, and the refusal to suspend the custodial term. The central issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the custodial term should have been suspended in light of rehabilitation, risk, punishment and other relevant factors.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed and the sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment was upheld.

1. Harm and mitigation. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the assault on the appellant’s mother in Category 2 rather than Category 3. The force of the punch and its consequences went beyond limited physical or psychological harm. The judge also gave adequate reasons for treating the mental health material as providing little mitigation. No disorder linked to the offending was relied upon. A linked disorder would have reduced culpability from Category B to C under the relevant guideline. An unlinked mental health issue may mitigate where custody would weigh more heavily on the offender, but there was no evidence of that effect. The character references did not demonstrate that insufficient allowance had been made for mitigation.
2. Totality and sentence structure. The omission of an express reference to totality was an error, since the sentencing judge should explain how the guidelines have been applied. It did not, however, require an automatic reduction on appeal. The question was whether, standing back, the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. Concurrent or consecutive sentences were both available because there were two victims and distinct considerations. If the assaults were treated as one incident attracting a concurrent sentence, its sustained 30-minute duration could itself elevate culpability. The overall sentence was tough but not manifestly excessive.
3. Suspension. The relevant exercise was a judgmental balancing of competing factors, not a numerical tally: R v Price [2023] EWCA Crim 1099, at paragraph 12. Immediate custody required for punishment was not a decisive trump card and had to be weighed against factors favouring suspension: R v Anjorin [2022] EWCA Crim 1932, at paragraph 19. The appellant lacked strong personal mitigation, custody was not shown to cause significant harmful impact on others, and there was no history of poor compliance with court orders. Against suspension stood a significant risk of serious harm and the judge’s assessment that immediate custody was required for punishment. Rehabilitation was the only factor favouring suspension, but its realistic prospect was weak and insufficient to outweigh the contrary factors.
4. Disposition. The Crown Court’s sentence was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 25 September 2025, dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld the aggregate sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 1318.
• Crown Court at Lewes — On 6 August 2025, sentenced the appellant to 10 months’ imprisonment on each assault, consecutively, with one month for criminal damage concurrent.
• Crawley Magistrates’ Court — The appellant pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence.