Josh Campbell v R

For religiously aggravated criminal damage, the sentencing guideline is selected by reference to the maximum sentence applicable to the basic offence as it reached the indictment. Where the aggravated offence alone was charged and no judicial decision capped the basic offence, the higher-value guideline applied, with regard to the lower-value guideline. Repair cost remains relevant, but in hate-motivated offending the principal harm may lie in fear, distress and community impact rather than damage to property. A separate uplift for religious aggravation is permissible where the basic-offence stage has not already counted the same features. The sentence was neither the product of double counting nor manifestly excessive.

After trial at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook, the appellant was convicted of three counts of religiously aggravated criminal damage under section 30(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The damage cost less than £5,000. The aggravated offence alone had been charged, and the magistrates had sent the case for trial without determining the value under section 22 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The appellant received concurrent sentences of 32 months’ imprisonment. He argued that the lower-value guideline should have been used and that a further uplift for religious aggravation involved double counting. The central issues were which guideline applied and whether the sentence was excessive.

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence.

1. The offence charged was the aggravated offence under section 30 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It was not an offence listed in Schedule 2 to the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The magistrates therefore could not use section 22(1) and (2) to proceed as if the offence were summary only because the damage was worth less than £5,000.
2. Where only the aggravated form of criminal damage has been charged, the maximum sentence for the basic offence may be impossible to determine from the procedural history. Applying the logic of R v Alden [2002] EWCA Crim 421, the basic offence was to be treated as an either-way offence carrying a ten-year maximum because no judicial decision had capped the Crown Court’s powers. The higher-value guideline therefore applied, although regard should also be had to the lower-value guideline.
3. The value of the damage was relevant to culpability and harm, but it was not the most significant feature of religiously motivated offending. Fear, distress and wider community impact could make the offence serious even where the repair cost was modest.
4. The judge was entitled first to select an 18-month starting point for the basic offence and then to apply a significant uplift for the religious aggravation. The relevant features had helped place the offence in category A1, but their particularly grave effect could properly be marked at the uplift stage without double counting.
5. Where a sentencing guideline leaves an important part of the assessment to the court’s judgment, prior sentence appeals may provide a useful check, subject to their fact-specific nature. R v Rezazadeh [2020] EWCA Crim 607 showed that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The sentence was substantially below that upheld in Rezazadeh.
6. Even if the lower-value guideline had applied, the sentence could have been justified by the uplift for religious aggravation. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against sentence dismissed: [2026] EWCA Crim 51.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: following conviction after trial, the appellant received three concurrent sentences of 32 months’ imprisonment.