R v Daniel Baverstock

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, the court considers whether the total sentence is manifestly excessive having regard to the totality principle. Separate consecutive sentences for serious and sustained breaches of a restraining order may be justified where the offending, aggravating features and relevant previous convictions warrant substantial custody. The court assesses the sentence in the round. A challenge concerning concurrency, sentence length or the adequacy of sentencing reasons will not justify leave unless the total sentence is arguably manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Maidstone to four offences. They comprised two breaches of a restraining order, driving without insurance and impersonating a police officer. The breaches involved repeated contact with a former partner and her daughter, including messages, social-media contact and visits to the former partner’s home. The sentencing judge imposed a total sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment, comprising consecutive terms of one year and one year and three months for the breaches, with concurrent or no separate penalties for the other offences.

A single judge refused leave to appeal. The applicant renewed his application, arguing that the terms for the breaches should have been concurrent or that the totality principle required a shorter sentence. The central issue was whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Application refused. The proposed appeal had no prospect of success. The court agreed with the single judge’s conclusion that the total sentence was not manifestly excessive.
2. The two breach offences were properly placed in category A2 under the relevant sentencing guideline. Their starting point was one year’s custody, with a range extending to two years. The categorisation was not disputed. The applicant’s significant record, including related offences involving harassment, stalking, breaches of restraining orders and assaults, was a substantial aggravating factor. Contact with the complainant’s daughter was also aggravating. The recorder had indicated a sentence of 36 months after trial and reduced it by one quarter for the guilty pleas.
3. The applicant argued that the sentences for the two breaches should have been concurrent and that the totality principle required a reduction even if consecutive sentences were permissible. The court’s task on the renewed application was to consider whether the total sentence, viewed overall, was manifestly excessive having regard to totality. In light of the serious and sustained breaches, the additional aggravating features and the applicant’s history, that contention was not arguable.
4. The applicant also submitted that the recorder had insufficiently explained the decision to impose consecutive sentences and the length of the sentences. That submission did not alter the decisive question whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive. The renewed application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 30 October 2025, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 1487.
• Single judge: Refused the applicant’s original application for leave to appeal.
• Crown Court at Maidstone: On 18 June 2025, imposed a total sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.