R v Terry Dervan

When sentencing for breach of a protective order in a domestic-abuse context, care must be taken not to underestimate the harm. A finding of very serious harm, or an intention to cause it, requires evidence sufficient to satisfy the criminal standard. Persistent and distressing conduct may instead justify the serious-harm category, with aggravating features reflected in sentence. An appellate court may correct a miscategorisation and reassess the sentence, applying totality and appropriate credit for guilty pleas.

The appellant was sentenced by Recorder Andrew Vinson in the Crown Court at Manchester on 13 January 2025 to four years’ imprisonment for assault by beating, breaches of a non-molestation order and racially aggravated stalking. A restraining order was also made and a victim surcharge imposed.

He appealed against sentence by leave. The challenge focused on the classification of the two breaches as category A1 offences involving very serious harm, and on whether the resulting notional sentence of six years after trial was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the evidence proved very serious harm, or an intention to cause it, and what sentence followed from correcting that categorisation.

Decision

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence of four years’ imprisonment on the first breach offence was quashed and replaced with 32 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with the other sentences. The total sentence was therefore reduced to two years and eight months. [15]
2. The appellant’s record of breaching court orders, the domestic-abuse context, the presence of a child, the proximity to the making of the order, persistence after being reminded of it, and vile racial abuse were substantial aggravating features. There was no mitigation, and severe punishment was warranted. [11]
3. The judge was entitled to find high culpability. However, although the harm in domestic-abuse cases must not be underestimated, the evidence did not establish to the criminal standard that the breaches caused, or that the appellant intended to cause, very serious harm. The offences were therefore properly categorised as A2 offences involving serious harm. [12]-[13]
4. The A2 guideline provided a starting point of one year’s imprisonment and a category range of up to two years. Given the aggravating features, three years after trial for both breaches was justified. Applying totality to all the offending and then allowing full credit for the guilty pleas produced an appropriate total sentence of about four years after trial, equivalent to 32 months after credit. [14]

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 9 September 2025, allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the sentence on the first breach offence and substituted 32 months’ imprisonment, concurrent with the other sentences: [2025] EWCA Crim 1525.
• Crown Court at Manchester — On 13 January 2025, Recorder Andrew Vinson imposed a total sentence of four years’ imprisonment. No citation for the decision was stated in the judgment.