R v Mark Gary Coates

An appellate court reviewing a sentence for criminal damage asks whether the result is manifestly excessive, not whether another sentencing structure could have been used. Where related conduct has already been punished as civil contempt, the criminal court must take the earlier sentence into account so that the offender is not punished twice. The overlap in punitive and deterrent objectives must be recognised, while allowing for different sentencing regimes and maxima. A breach of the civil order should not itself aggravate the criminal sentence, but a deliberate attempt to frustrate the integrity of the civil justice system may be a separate serious aggravating feature. A sentence may be upheld where the offending involves multiple serious culpability and harm factors, little mitigation and a meaningful deduction for the earlier sentence.

The appellant was convicted after trial at the Crown Court at Lewes of two counts of criminal damage involving extensive damage to his own house and to his neighbours’ roof. He was acquitted of harassment. He had already received a civil-contempt sentence for damaging the neighbours’ roof in breach of a court order. The Recorder treated the offending as category 1A, imposed five years for the two counts and reduced the sentence by eight months to reflect the civil sentence, resulting in 4 years and 16 weeks’ imprisonment. The appeal alleged manifest excessiveness, departure from the guideline range and inadequate allowance for the appellant’s caring responsibilities. The central issue was whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed. The sentence of 4 years and 16 weeks’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

1. The appellate question was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. Sentences may be structured in different ways, so the focus was on the outcome rather than the particular method adopted by the Recorder.
2. The criminal court had to take proper account of the earlier civil-contempt sentence. The objectives of the two sentences overlapped because both included punishment and deterrence, although the regimes and maximum sentences differed. The guidance in Lomas v Parle [2004] 1 WLR 1642 was relevant by analogy. The offender was not to be punished twice for the same conduct, and the second court had to be fully informed of the first sentence.
3. The Recorder was entitled to place both offences in category 1A and to treat the damage to the appellant’s own house as the lead offence. The offending involved planning, revenge, serious damage, serious distress and high financial loss. The applicable category 1A starting point was 1 year 6 months, with a range of 6 months to 4 years.
4. The fact that the offences were committed in breach of the civil sentence was not treated as an aggravating feature. However, the deliberate attempt to frustrate the integrity of the civil justice system was a separate serious aggravating feature. The location, the relative vulnerability of the neighbours, the risk to others and the appellant’s lack of repentance were also relevant. There was little evidence supporting the claimed caring responsibility and no real mitigation.
5. The Recorder’s five-year sentence before deduction was within the permissible evaluative exercise for two offences with multiple serious culpability and harm factors. The eight-month deduction for the civil sentence was generous. The civil sentence concerned the lesser damage to the neighbours’ house and did not reflect the more serious criminal damage to the appellant’s own house. The final sentence therefore did not create a manifest discrepancy and the appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2025] EWCA Crim 1676 dismissed the appeal against sentence.
2. Crown Court at Lewes: the appellant was convicted after trial on 29 November 2024 and sentenced on 10 March 2025 to 4 years and 16 weeks’ imprisonment.