R v David Joseph Davies
[2024] EWCA Crim 846
R v Barry Anthony Drain
12 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 945
Court of Appeal
A man was given a 24-month prison sentence for repeatedly harassing his neighbours, breaking a court order to stay away. An appeals court thought the sentence was too harsh and reduced it to 16 months, plus an additional 8 weeks from a previous suspended sentence. They said the judge should have followed sentencing guidelines more closely.
Key Facts
- •Barry Anthony Drain pleaded guilty to breach of a restraining order and damaging property.
- •He was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment for the restraining order breach, with suspended sentences of 8 weeks activated concurrently.
- •The offences involved repeated harassment and intimidation of a mother and her teenage daughter.
- •Drain has a lengthy criminal record with 59 previous offences, including multiple previous breaches of restraining orders.
- •The judge considered the harm caused to be very serious and the defendant's history of offending as exceptional.
- •The sentencing judge departed from the guideline sentencing range for the breach of restraining order.
Legal Principles
Duty to follow sentencing guidelines unless contrary to the interests of justice.
Section 59 of the Sentencing Code
Sentencing within the offence range is mandatory unless a departure is justified.
Sections 59 and 60 of the Sentencing Code
The judge is not obligated to sentence within the category range, only to identify the appropriate starting point.
Section 60 of the Sentencing Code
Activation of suspended sentences should be consecutive unless unjust.
Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 16 to the Sentencing Code
Outcomes
The appeal was granted in part.
The original sentence of 24 months' imprisonment for the breach of restraining order was deemed manifestly excessive, even considering the aggravating factors. The court adjusted the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense while adhering to principles of proportionality.
The 24-month sentence was quashed.
The court found the sentence to be manifestly excessive in light of the sentencing guidelines and the specific circumstances of the case.
A new sentence of 16 months' imprisonment was imposed for the breach of the restraining order.
This reflects a reduction for the guilty plea and a more proportionate sentence according to the Court of Appeal.
The eight-week suspended sentence was activated consecutively to the 16-month sentence.
The court found this to be consistent with the principles of sentencing.