R v Javier Casas-Alvarez

When a court considers suspending a custodial sentence, it must weigh all relevant factors in the Imposition Guideline and explain the balance. A realistic prospect of rehabilitation is not decisive unless the court addresses whether the offender’s risk to others, the seriousness requiring immediate custody, and any poor compliance undermine it. In controlling or coercive behaviour cases, prolonged offending, frequent actual violence, serious harm, previous similar convictions and a high future risk may require a substantial uplift and immediate custody. Good behaviour outside the family or in prison may have little mitigating value. Time spent on remand can affect the balance, but its weight depends on the custody that an immediate sentence would entail.

The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer a sentence imposed by the Crown Court at St Albans. The offender had pleaded guilty to controlling or coercive behaviour over approximately ten years and to an assault by beating. The Crown Court imposed 27 months’ imprisonment suspended for three years on the controlling-behaviour count and imposed no separate penalty for the assault. The offender had spent about seven months on remand and had earlier Italian convictions for violence against the same partner. The central issues were whether the custodial term should have been higher, whether the suspension exercise properly addressed the guideline factors, and how the remand period and later conduct should affect the sentence.

Reference allowed. The Court treated the principal issue as whether the sentence should have been suspended. The classification of the controlling or coercive behaviour offence as category A for culpability and category 1 for harm was correct.

1. Where the shortest term commensurate with seriousness is more than 12 months and no more than three years, the Imposition Guideline requires the court to consider suspension and weigh the relevant factors. Sentencing remarks should explain how those factors have been balanced.
2. The judge erred by placing substantial weight on rehabilitation without explaining why the right-hand factors in the guideline table did not undermine that assessment. Those factors included risk to any person, whether the seriousness of the offence required immediate custody, and poor compliance with court orders coupled with likely future non-compliance. The offender’s Italian convictions and conduct were relevant despite the absence of previous convictions or court-order breaches in England and Wales.
3. Immediate custody was required. The offending lasted a decade, involved frequent actual violence, caused very serious harm to both victims, followed earlier violence against the same partner, and demonstrated a high risk to future intimate partners. Although actual violence is not required for the controlling-behaviour offence, frequent actual violence materially increased the seriousness. Good conduct in prison and in public life had very limited mitigating value and did not reassure the Court about future family relationships.
4. Seven months spent on remand could in an appropriate case support suspension, but its weight depended on the difference between time already served and the custody resulting from an immediate sentence. That difference was substantial here. On the related issue of mitigation on an Attorney General’s reference, R v X,Y and Z [2026] EWCA Crim 845 at [168] was applied. No allowance was justified because the offender had disengaged from probation, left the jurisdiction and showed no intention of completing the suspended sentence requirements.
5. The sentences were quashed. The Court imposed 37 months’ immediate imprisonment on count 1, after allowing five months for the late guilty plea, and a concurrent four-month term on count 3. No separate penalty was inadequate to reflect the assault. The restraining orders and other orders remained unaffected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the Attorney General’s reference, found sentencing error, quashed the sentences and imposed 37 months’ immediate imprisonment on count 1 and four months concurrently on count 3.
• Crown Court at St Albans: On 23 April 2026, imposed 27 months’ imprisonment suspended for three years on count 1 and no separate penalty on count 3.