R v Paul Thomas Shingleton

In service sentencing, immediate imprisonment is generally appropriate for disciplinary offending where a civilian offender in the same circumstances would receive immediate custody. Service detention may be considered as a direct alternative where the service interest and the interests of justice require it. Disobedience of no-contact orders protecting a complainant may justify a consecutive sentence, akin to breach of bail conditions. An appellate court asks whether the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. An error in sentencing remarks about the applicable guideline category does not itself require intervention where the sentence is justified under the correct category. Four months’ imprisonment was therefore upheld.

After pleading guilty before the Military Court Centre at Bulford to sexual assault and two offences of disobedience to a lawful command, the appellant received 28 months’ imprisonment for the sexual assault and four months’ imprisonment for the disciplinary offences. The latter sentences ran concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sexual-assault sentence.

On limited leave, the appellant challenged the use of imprisonment rather than service detention and argued that the four-month term was manifestly excessive. The appeal concerned the proper application of the Service Court Sentencing Guideline (Disciplinary Offences), the effect of an error in the sentencing remarks about the starting point and range, and the principle of totality.

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the appeal against sentence.

1. Choice between imprisonment and service detention. The service sentencing guidance is modelled on civilian sentencing principles but recognises that maintaining discipline may make the exercise different in a service court. Under the Armed Forces Act 2006, relevant Sentencing Council guidelines must be considered. Where no such guideline addresses a disciplinary offence, the Service Court Sentencing Guideline (Disciplinary Offences) should be considered. If an offender in the same circumstances would receive immediate imprisonment in a civilian court, immediate imprisonment is likely to be appropriate in the Service Court. Immediate service detention is available as a direct alternative where the service interest and the interests of justice warrant it.
2. The disciplinary offences were intrinsically linked to the sexual assault. The sexual assault plainly crossed the custody threshold. It was impracticable to impose service detention for the disciplinary offences consecutively to imprisonment for the sexual assault, and neither the guidance nor the Armed Forces Act 2006 supported that solution.
3. Consecutive sentence. The disobedience consisted of breaches of no-contact orders protecting the victim. The offences were akin to breaches of bail conditions prohibiting an accused from approaching a complainant or witness. A consecutive sentence was therefore required.
4. Guideline application and appellate review. Deliberate, premeditated and persistent disobedience justified high culpability. The offences properly fell within category 2A harm. That category had a starting point of 30 weeks’ service detention and a range extending to six months’ imprisonment. Although the sentencing remarks referred incorrectly to the starting point and range for category 1B, the six-month sentence before plea credit was justified by the culpability and harm, together with aggravating features. The appellate question was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, not merely whether the remarks contained an error. Applying the correct guideline, the four-month sentence respected totality and met neither threshold.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2025] EWCA Crim 557 — dismissed the limited appeal against sentence.
• Military Court Centre at Bulford: following guilty pleas, the Judge Advocate General imposed 28 months’ imprisonment for sexual assault and four months’ imprisonment for two disobedience offences, concurrent with each other and consecutive to the sexual-assault sentence.