R v Alan Putland

When assessing harm for stalking, the sentencing judge may consider relevant background circumstances that explain the victim’s vulnerability and the impact of the offending. The offender is sentenced for the indicted conduct, not for the background itself. Expert evidence is not required before the judge can find very serious distress or significant psychological harm. The assessment is for the judge on the evidence, including victim personal statements and the nature of the behaviour. Category 1 harm may therefore be established without expert psychological evidence where the evidence demonstrates very serious distress to a vulnerable victim.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Bournemouth after he pleaded guilty to stalking involving serious alarm and distress. He received two years and eight months’ imprisonment. The single judge had refused leave.

The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had wrongly relied on relationship background contained in a victim personal statement, and that there was insufficient evidence, including no expert evidence, to place harm in category 1. The central issues were whether the background could be considered in assessing the impact of the stalking and whether expert evidence was required.

1. Disposition. The renewed application for leave to appeal sentence was refused.
2. Assessment of harm. The applicable stalking guideline indicated category 1 harm by very serious distress, significant psychological harm, or considerable lifestyle changes to avoid contact. The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to assess the impact of the stalking on the victim in light of her relevant background vulnerability.
3. Use of background material. The applicant was sentenced for the stalking conduct, not for earlier abusive behaviour. However, the background was relevant to understanding the victim’s condition and the effect of the indicted behaviour upon her. The judge was therefore entitled to take it into account.
4. Expert evidence. Following R v Chall [2019] EWCA Crim 865, expert evidence was not required before a sentencing judge could conclude that significant psychological harm had been caused. The assessment of harm was for the judge on the evidence.
5. The two recent victim personal statements, considered with the nature of the stalking behaviour, provided ample evidence of very serious distress to an already vulnerable victim. The judge was entitled to place harm in category 1 and had not been shown to have erred in principle.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal sentence was refused.
2. Single judge: The initial application for leave to appeal was refused.
3. Crown Court at Bournemouth: Following a guilty plea, the applicant was sentenced on 22 August 2025 to two years and eight months’ imprisonment for stalking involving serious alarm and distress.