R v Nicholas Westguard
[2024] EWCA Crim 378
R v Andrew Hodgetts
19 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1284
Court of Appeal
A man was sentenced to 27 months in jail for stalking two people. The appeals court thought that was too long, considering his mental health problems, and reduced it to 22 months. He still had to go to jail, though, because of how serious his crimes were.
Key Facts
- •Andrew Hodgetts was sentenced to 27 months imprisonment for two counts of stalking (against Miss Ran Dai and Mr Sebastian Arnold).
- •The stalking involved persistent actions over many months, including repeated attempts to contact the victims, trespassing, and even an attempt to break into Mr. Arnold's flat.
- •Hodgetts had a history of breaching bail conditions.
- •Hodgetts had mental health issues (adjustment disorder with depression, insecure attachment difficulties, traits of autistic spectrum disorder) following a relationship breakdown with Miss Dai.
- •The judge considered victim impact statements highlighting the lasting harm inflicted on both complainants.
- •Hodgetts pleaded guilty to both counts.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for stalking offences (Category B1: high culpability and high harm).
Sentencing Guidelines
Consideration of mental health in sentencing (sufficient connection between impairment and offending).
Guideline on sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments
Aggravating factors in sentencing (breach of bail, multiple victims).
Statutory aggravating factor
Mitigating factors in sentencing (mental health, remorse, good character, personal circumstances).
Various
Principles of sentencing (proportionality, punishment, rehabilitation).
Imposition guideline
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; sentence reduced from 27 months to 22 months imprisonment on Count 1.
The Court of Appeal found the original sentence manifestly excessive. While acknowledging the seriousness of the offences and the aggravating factors, they concluded that the judge's notional sentence after trial was too high, failing to adequately balance the mitigating factors (Hodgetts' mental health, remorse, personal circumstances).
Sentence on Count 2 (3 months concurrent) upheld.
The Court of Appeal did not find any grounds to challenge the sentence on Count 2.
Sentence not suspended.
Despite acknowledging the mitigating factors and the prospect of rehabilitation, the Court considered immediate custody necessary due to Hodgetts' history of non-compliance with court orders and the risk he posed to the complainants.