R v Terry Andrews

On an Attorney General’s reference against an allegedly unduly lenient sentence, the Court of Appeal should assess the sentence on the basis of plea accepted by the prosecution. Where that basis substantially minimises serious allegations, the reference cannot be used to repair the earlier failure to ensure that those allegations were admitted or tried. A sentence is not necessarily unduly lenient merely because a longer sentence could have been imposed on the limited basis. Suspension is a separate exercise under the imposition guideline. It is not wrong in principle where there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, no high risk of reoffending or harm, and strong personal mitigation.

R v Terry Andrews came before the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on an Attorney General’s reference under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The reference challenged sentences imposed by the Crown Court at Canterbury, where the offender had pleaded guilty to controlling or coercive behaviour, grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and criminal damage.

The Crown Court sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, with community requirements. The prosecution had accepted a basis of plea substantially limiting the extent of the controlling or coercive behaviour and the circumstances of the violence. The central issues were whether the sentence was unduly lenient on that accepted basis and whether suspension of the sentence was wrong in principle.

1. Leave and the accepted basis of plea. The court granted leave under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, recognising that the reference was arguable. That grant did not approve the way the case had been handled in the Crown Court. The court expressed surprise and concern that the prosecution had accepted a basis of plea which substantially reduced the seriousness of allegations supported by the complainant’s recorded evidence, photographs and messages.
2. Unduly lenient sentence. The accepted basis should, on the material before the court, have led to its rejection. It was too late, however, to remedy the failure to ensure that the serious allegations were either admitted or tried by a jury through an Attorney General’s reference. Although a significantly longer sentence could have been imposed even on the accepted basis, the court concluded that it would be wrong to find the two-year term unduly lenient in the circumstances. The conclusion was reached reluctantly and with hesitation.
3. Suspension. The Recorder had properly applied the imposition guideline. She considered whether immediate custody was required and addressed the factors favouring suspension. Those factors included a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community, the absence of a high risk of reoffending or harm, and strong personal mitigation. The offender had no history of failing to respond to court orders. The decision to suspend the sentence was therefore neither irrational nor wrong in principle.
4. Disposition. The court declined to increase any of the sentences. The record was amended so that the Building Choices Accredited Programme required 26 days, not 26 sessions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Attorney General sought leave under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer sentences imposed by the Crown Court at Canterbury as allegedly unduly lenient. Leave was granted, but the sentences were not increased.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: The offender was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, with community requirements.