R v Philip Humphreys

A realistic prospect of rehabilitation is not, by itself, sufficient to justify suspending a custodial sentence. The sentencing court must weigh all relevant suspension factors. Where the seriousness of prolonged domestic abuse means that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody, the sentence must be immediate.

In sentencing controlling or coercive behaviour, multiple indicators of culpability and harm, including serious violence within the course of conduct, require a substantial upward adjustment. Personal mitigation must be weighed proportionately against those features. A late guilty plea following an unsuccessful Newton hearing may justify only a five per cent reduction.

The offender pleaded guilty on the day of trial to controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. The offending lasted nearly six months. It involved repeated emotional, financial and controlling abuse, and culminated in an incident of strangulation which caused bruising and lasting harm to the victim.

Following a Newton hearing, the offender’s account was rejected. When the Crown Court sentenced him, it was not told either of that hearing or that the guilty plea had been late. The judge imposed 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, with unpaid work and rehabilitation requirements.

The Attorney General referred the sentence as unduly lenient. The central issues were whether the custodial term was too short and whether the sentence should have been suspended.

1. The court gave leave and allowed the Attorney General’s reference. It quashed the suspended sentence and substituted 28 months’ immediate imprisonment.

2. The offence was a serious and prolonged example of coercive and controlling behaviour. It had a devastating and enduring effect on the victim. The course of conduct included intentional strangulation which ended only when hotel staff intervened. There were multiple indicators of higher culpability and harm, together with the seriously aggravating feature of a previous conviction for grievous bodily harm against a former partner.

3. The judge had treated rehabilitation as the decisive consideration when deciding to suspend the sentence. That was an error. Rehabilitation was only one relevant consideration under the imposition guideline. Despite some evidence of attempts to change, the offender still presented a risk and the gravity of the offending meant that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody. Suspension was therefore unjustifiable and itself rendered the sentence unduly lenient.

4. The custodial term was also unduly lenient. A substantial upward adjustment from the category starting point was required for the multiple culpability and harm factors and the aggravating antecedents. The judge’s modest uplift, followed by a much greater reduction for personal mitigation, created an unjustifiable imbalance. The appropriate notional sentence could not reasonably have been below 30 months before credit for plea.

5. Because the guilty plea was entered on the day of trial and the Newton hearing had been resolved against the offender, a five per cent reduction was appropriate. That produced a sentence of about 28 and a half months; the court substituted 28 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General’s reference, the court gave leave, held the sentence unduly lenient, and substituted an immediate sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 743.
• Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent: On 7 March 2025, His Honour Judge Meegan imposed 18 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years, with unpaid work and rehabilitation requirements. At a later slip-rule hearing, the judge declined to alter the sentence after learning that a Newton hearing had occurred.