R v Robert Evans
[2023] EWCA Crim 1520
R v Jaiganesh Ashok-Kumar
31 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 996
Court of Appeal
A husband was convicted of violently abusing his wife. The court reduced one of his sentences because it was too long, but kept the rest of the punishment the same because he was found to be a danger to his wife. A small mistake in a court fee was also corrected.
Key Facts
- •The appellant, Jaiganesh Ashok-Kumar, was convicted of four offences against his wife: assault occasioning actual bodily harm (count 1), controlling or coercive behaviour (count 2), intentional strangulation (count 3), and intentional suffocation (count 4).
- •The offences spanned several years, with count 1 involving a severe wound to the victim's buttock caused by a rolling pin and kneeing.
- •Count 2 detailed controlling and coercive behaviour, including waking the victim at 4 am, setting unrealistic chore deadlines, threats of waterboarding, and tracking her mobile devices.
- •Counts 3 and 4 involved waterboarding and submerging the victim in an ice bath.
- •The victim initially gave an account supporting the prosecution but later attempted to exculpate the appellant at trial, leading to her being cross-examined as a hostile witness.
- •The appellant had no prior convictions.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Sentencing Guidelines
Sentencing guidelines for coercive or controlling behaviour.
Sentencing Guidelines
Imposition of extended sentences for dangerous offenders.
Sentencing Act 2020, section 280(1)(b), section 281(5)
Principle of totality in sentencing.
Overarching Guideline on Totality
Considerations of mitigating factors, including good character in domestic abuse cases.
Overarching Guideline on Domestic Abuse
Outcomes
The extended sentence of seven years on count 1 (assault occasioning actual bodily harm) was quashed as unlawful due to exceeding the statutory maximum of five years.
The extended sentence on count 1 exceeded the statutory maximum sentence for the offence, making it unlawful.
The appeal against the finding of dangerousness was dismissed.
The judge's conclusion that the appellant was dangerous was supported by ample evidence, including a pre-sentence report highlighting a very high risk of serious harm to the victim.
The appeal against the overall sentence being manifestly excessive was dismissed.
The judge appropriately applied the principle of totality, and the consecutive sentences were justified given the nature and severity of the offences. Mitigating factors were considered but did not warrant a lower sentence.
A substituted sentence of five years (four years custody, one year extended licence) was imposed on count 1.
To rectify the unlawful sentence on count 1, while maintaining the consecutive nature of the sentence in relation to count 2.
The victim surcharge was amended from £190 to £120.
Correction of an administrative error in calculating the victim surcharge based on the offending period of count 2.