R v Logan Cheney

On a sentence appeal, the issue is whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, not whether the appellate court would have imposed a different sentence. In serious domestic offending, the sentencing court may assess the gravity of repeated strangulation, associated violence, threats, continuing offending and harm to multiple victims, while applying the guideline and totality. Mental-health evidence must inform culpability and risk, but uncertainty about diagnosis, reliability or causation may not justify a substantial reduction or dictate a particular sentence. Homelessness is not an automatic bar to suspension. Suspension may nevertheless be refused where serious offending, unresolved mental-health needs, high risk and the absence of suitable accommodation or a workable treatment and release structure make it unsafe or unworkable.

After pleading guilty to intentional strangulation and two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm, the appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Teesside to concurrent terms producing a total of 20 months’ detention in a young offender institution. The offences involved violence against his mother and younger brother.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had inflated the guideline starting point despite substantial mitigation, including his age, good character and mental-health difficulties, and had wrongly refused to suspend the sentence. The central issues were whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, and whether immediate custody was justified despite the appellant’s rehabilitation needs.

Disposition. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The sentence was to be recorded as detention in a young offender institution.

1. The appellate question was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. It was not whether another judge might have imposed a shorter sentence or calibrated it differently.
2. The 18-month starting point for intentional strangulation did not reflect the gravity of the case as a whole. The offending involved repeated strangulation during a sustained domestic assault, threats to obtain a knife and kill, continuing violence, and police intervention while the strangulation was still occurring. The assault occasioning actual bodily harm against the mother involved separate physical violence and was not merely duplicative. The judge was also entitled to consider totality across the three offences and two victims. A term of 30 months before credit was within the guideline range for strangulation and, although at the top of the relevant range for the assault against the mother, was not outside it. Concurrent sentences and full one-third credit produced an effective sentence of 20 months.
3. The mental-health evidence was real and significant and had to be considered both in assessing culpability and in assessing risk. However, the experts disagreed about fitness, and the evidence left uncertainty about diagnosis, reliability and causal contribution to the offending. The material did not establish a complete lack of capacity or require a particular sentencing outcome. The judge was entitled to conclude that it reduced culpability only to some extent, while recognising the seriousness and risk demonstrated by the offending.
4. The custody threshold was plainly crossed. Homelessness was not treated as an automatic bar to suspension. The refusal of a suspended sentence was nevertheless sound because there was no suitable accommodation, safeguarding concerns prevented residence with the father, the victims could not provide a safe home, and the pre-sentence report identified a high risk of serious harm without a stable release or treatment structure.
5. The appellant’s time on remand and limited progress in obtaining treatment could have practical importance for release arrangements, but did not make the sentence manifestly excessive. The sentencing remarks’ reference to imprisonment was a technical slip; for an offender under 21, the lawful form of sentence was detention in a young offender institution, as correctly recorded.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2026] EWCA Crim 1243 : leave to appeal against sentence granted, but the appeal dismissed. The sentence was recorded as detention in a young offender institution.
• Crown Court at Teesside — following guilty pleas, concurrent terms of 20 months on the strangulation and assault counts and four weeks on the assault against the younger brother were imposed.