R v Ashley Sutcliffe

On an appeal against sentence, a sentence is not manifestly excessive merely because it lies towards the upper end of the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. False reports made shortly after an offence to conceal it may aggravate sentence. In a racially aggravated assault, racial motivation and singling out the victim are high-level culpability factors capable of justifying custody or increasing its length. Relevant previous convictions and offending on bail may add aggravation. Where distinct offences involve different victims and different occasions, consecutive sentences may be proper. The appellate court must stand back and assess totality, even if the sentencing judge did not expressly refer to it.

After pleading guilty in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull, the appellant was sentenced by HHJ Mark Bury on 22 May 2026 to 27 months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, followed consecutively by six months for racially aggravated common assault. The appellant appealed with leave, arguing that the starting point for the first offence was too high, that the racial uplift was excessive, and that totality had not been sufficiently considered. The central issue was whether either sentence, or the aggregate sentence, was manifestly excessive.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal considered each sentence separately and then the totality of the sentence.

1. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The prosecution’s category 2A classification was not challenged. The victim had been attacked while asleep, a weapon had been used, and the attack was premeditated as part of a plan to evict him. Previous convictions and false allegations made shortly after the offence to conceal it were additional aggravating features. After allowing for the guilty plea and mitigation, the 27-month sentence was towards the upper end of the range reasonably open to the judge but was not manifestly excessive. [10]–[12]
2. Racially aggravated assault. The racial element required an uplift before general aggravating and mitigating factors were considered. Racial aggravation was the predominant motive and the victim had been singled out for that reason. That was a high-level culpability factor capable of justifying custody or increasing its length. Previous racially aggravated convictions and offending while on police bail were further aggravating features. The appellant’s response did not warrant mitigation beyond the 25 per cent guilty plea credit. The six-month sentence was not manifestly excessive. [7], [13]
3. Totality. Consecutive sentences were appropriate because the offences were distinct, involved different victims and were committed on different occasions. Although the judge had not expressly referred to totality, the appellate court stood back and considered the overall sentence in light of the features of both offences. It was satisfied that the judge had done the same and that the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive. [14]
4. The appeal was dismissed. [15]

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 31 July 2026, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence. [2026] EWCA Crim 1146 .
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull: On 22 May 2026, after guilty pleas, HHJ Mark Bury imposed 27 months for the offence under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and a consecutive six months for racially aggravated common assault.