R v James Shiels

Consecutive sentences may properly be imposed for coercive and controlling behaviour involving separate victims, even where the offending has a common motivation. The decisive question is whether the offences represent sufficiently distinct criminality, having regard to the victims, the courses of conduct and the character of the abuse. The court must then apply totality by standing back from the individual sentences and ensuring that the overall tariff fairly reflects the combined criminality, aggravating features and mitigation. A sentence at the top of the guideline range may be excessive where the offending, although serious, falls short of the worst cases and the offender has limited convictions, shown genuine remorse and taken steps to address the causes of the offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two separate counts of coercive and controlling behaviour. One concerned his mother, with whom he lived, and the other concerned his elderly maternal grandmother, from whom he obtained substantial sums of money through emotional blackmail. He also pleaded guilty to theft and common assault arising from the offending against his mother.

The Crown Court at Lewes imposed a total sentence of 54 months’ imprisonment on 15 November 2024. It imposed consecutive sentences for the offending against the two victims and treated the theft and common assault as aggravating features of the offence against the mother. The appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that the conduct should have been treated as one course of conduct or that the total sentence failed to reflect totality.

The central issues were whether consecutive sentences were permissible and, if so, what overall sentence properly reflected the seriousness of the offending.

1. The appeal was allowed. The sentence of 54 months’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced by two years’ imprisonment for the offence against the appellant’s mother, followed consecutively by 18 months’ imprisonment for the offence against his grandmother. No separate penalty was imposed for the theft and common assault.
2. The sentencing judge had not erred in principle by imposing consecutive sentences. Although the offending was fuelled by a similar motivation, there were two separate victims and separate criminality. The abuse of the mother was a daily and controlling course of conduct within the shared home, involving monitoring, threats and deprivation of money needed for living. The conduct towards the grandmother was different in character: emotional blackmail was used to obtain money, including by exploiting the appellant’s behaviour towards his mother.
3. It was permissible to treat the theft and common assault as aggravating features of the offending against the mother. They marked the overall criminality without requiring separate sentences.
4. The individual sentences nevertheless had to be assessed in the context of totality. The court was required to stand back and weigh the aggravating and mitigating features against the overall tariff. The offending was serious and fell within Category A1 of the definitive guideline, with Category A culpability and Category 1 harm. However, the notional sentence after trial for the offending against the mother should have been three years, rather than a sentence at the top of the available range. The sentence for the grandmother was reduced from a 26-month starting point to 24 months to reflect totality. Guilty-plea credit then produced sentences of two years and 18 months respectively, making an overall tariff of three years and six months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentence imposed by the Crown Court was quashed and substituted with a total sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Lewes: On 15 November 2024, Ms Recorder Sims imposed a total sentence of 54 months’ imprisonment.