R v Leighton Ashby

Community impact evidence is a procedural and evidential mechanism, not a vehicle for general public condemnation. Under the Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions, a police statement must address particular local crime trends and their community impact, be served in good time, and allow the defence a meaningful opportunity to respond and prepare for cross-examination. Opinions about sentence are irrelevant.

Where an offender’s age and Autistic Spectrum Disorder are relevant, the sentencing judge should apply the Imposition Guideline and balance the factors for and against suspension. Immediate custody may nevertheless be upheld where the offending is so serious that suspension is not reasonably arguable.

After pleading guilty at Brighton Magistrates’ Court, the applicant was committed for sentence and sentenced at the Crown Court at Lewes to two years’ imprisonment for causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal, contrary to sections 4(1) and 32(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. He was also disqualified from dealing in, owning or keeping animals under section 34.

He sought leave to appeal against sentence, focusing on immediate custody rather than a suspended sentence order. He relied on his age, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, immaturity, delay, absence of further offending and prospects of rehabilitation. The court also considered community impact material placed before the sentencing judge. The central issues were whether that material could properly assist sentencing and whether the judge had adequately applied the Imposition Guideline.

Leave to appeal was refused.

1. By virtue of Cr PD 9.5.19, a police-prepared community impact statement may inform the court about particular crime trends in the local area and their impact on the local community. The court could not establish that the correspondents were from the local area, and the material identified no relevant crime trend. The general correspondence expressing horror at the offence was therefore not admissible as community impact evidence. The supplementary correspondence also breached the requirement that such evidence be filed in a witness statement or expert report.

2. Cr PD 9.5.22 makes opinions about the sentence that should be imposed irrelevant. The sentencing judge should pay no attention to them. Community impact evidence must also be served on the defence in good time. Since the maker may be cross-examined under Cr PD 19.5.20, service shortly before sentence which left no meaningful opportunity to respond or prepare for cross-examination was unfair. The material could not assist the sentencing judge or the Court of Appeal.

3. Given the applicant’s age and Autistic Spectrum Disorder, the sentencing judge should have referred to the Imposition Guideline and balanced the applicable factors for and against a suspended sentence order. Nevertheless, the seriousness and nature of the cruelty entitled the judge to conclude that appropriate punishment required immediate imprisonment. It was not reasonably arguable that the sentence should have been suspended.

4. The Court declined to consider whether the offending amounted to sadistic behaviour for the purpose of level A culpability under the animal cruelty guideline, because that issue was unrelated to the only ground advanced on appeal.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The Registrar referred the application for leave against sentence to the Full Court. Leave was refused: [2026] EWCA Crim 1055 .
2. Crown Court at Lewes — On 23 February 2026, HHJ Gold KC sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment and made a disqualification order under section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
3. Brighton Magistrates’ Court — On 7 August 2025, the applicant pleaded guilty and was committed for sentence.