R v Daniel Roach

For breach of a restraining order, the seriousness and persistence of the current conduct may properly determine a Category A culpability assessment. Earlier breaches may then be treated as separate aggravating factors without double counting.

A sentence above the applicable Sentencing Council guideline range requires sufficient justification. Serious offending and extensive previous breaches did not justify a sentence one year above the top of the range in this case. A custodial sentence need not be suspended where the offender has a poor record of complying with court orders and presents a real risk to the protected persons.

The appellant repeatedly breached a restraining order prohibiting contact with his parents. On the present occasion, he remained outside their home for about four hours, shouted abuse, and falsely claimed to possess a knife and to intend self-harm. His mother was distressed and afraid of him.

At Sheffield Crown Court, he received 27 months’ imprisonment after a guilty plea. The judge assessed the offence as Category A culpability and Category 2 harm under the Sentencing Council guideline, and imposed a three-year sentence before a 25 per cent reduction for the plea.

The appeal challenged the treatment of his motivation and previous convictions, alleged double counting, and contended that the sentence exceeded the guideline range without adequate explanation.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment and substituted 15 months’ imprisonment.
2. The offence was properly placed in Category A culpability and Category 2 harm. Category A resulted from the seriousness and persistence of the appellant’s conduct during the four-hour breach: he refused to leave, abused his mother, and claimed to have a knife and to intend suicide.
3. The appellant’s asserted wish to obtain mental-health help did not excuse or materially mitigate the breach. The restraining order protected his parents from contact, and he could have sought help elsewhere.
4. There was no impermissible double counting. The current conduct justified the Category A assessment. The seven previous convictions for breaching the restraining order were separate, seriously aggravating factors and justified an upward adjustment from the one-year starting point.
5. However, the relevant guideline range for a Category A2 offence extended to two years’ custody. Although the offending was serious, there were no factors justifying a sentence at the top of that range, still less a three-year sentence. The appropriate sentence was about 20 months before credit for the guilty plea and 15 months after the 25 per cent reduction.
6. The substituted sentence should not be suspended. The offence crossed the custody threshold. The appellant’s poor compliance with court orders and the real risk he posed to his parents were factors against suspension, and no countervailing factors justified it.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2025] EWCA Crim 786, allowed the sentence appeal, quashed the 27-month sentence and substituted 15 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Sheffield — on 22 October 2024, imposed 27 months’ imprisonment for breach of a restraining order following a guilty plea.