R v Adam Cheetham

Harassment may fall within category B2 even where persistence lasts only a short period, if the conduct escalates and causes significant distress. The seriousness of the final incident may be material. Domestic context and offending while under the influence of alcohol may significantly aggravate sentence. Consecutive sentences remain permissible for separate offences arising on the same occasion. The totality principle requires assessment of the aggregate sentence, but does not require a reduction where the offences are separate and the overall sentence is not manifestly excessive.

After the end of a seven-year relationship, the appellant pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and possession of a bladed article contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The Crown Court at Manchester imposed 26 months for wounding, 10 months consecutive for harassment, and 8 months concurrent for possession of the bladed article, making 36 months in total. The appeal concerned the starting point for the harassment offence and the application of totality.

The court dismissed the appeal.

1. Harassment categorisation. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the harassment offence in category B2. Although the offending occurred over a relatively short period, it escalated and caused significant distress. The final incident was extremely serious, involving threats, a knife and a struggle witnessed by others. The judge was entitled to increase the harassment starting point from nine to 12 months.
2. Aggravation and mitigation. The domestic context and the appellant’s being under the influence of alcohol on at least one occasion were significant aggravating features. The judge properly considered the appellant’s difficult upbringing, remorse, employment and rehabilitation, but was entitled to conclude that his upbringing provided no excuse. His fractured skull resulted from his criminal attack and afforded little, if any, mitigation.
3. Totality and concurrency. The concurrent sentence for the bladed article offence was properly imposed to avoid double counting, since the serious harm and distress were reflected in the harassment sentence. The judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences for the separate wounding and harassment offences. Their occurrence on the same occasion might have justified a slight reduction, but failure to make that adjustment was not wrong in principle.

Having stood back and considered the offending overall, the court was not satisfied that the total sentence of 36 months was manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 10 June 2025, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 804.
• Crown Court at Manchester — On 14 March 2025, HHJ Woodward imposed a total sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment.