R v Dalton Jefferies
[2023] EWCA Crim 21
R v Kalanther Nibraz
24 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1343
Court of Appeal
A man was sentenced to 27 months in prison for abusing his wife. He appealed, saying the judge had implied he wouldn't go to jail. The court disagreed, saying the judge's words didn't promise him anything, and his sentence was fair considering how badly he treated his wife.
Key Facts
- •Appellant pleaded guilty to controlling or coercive behaviour (s.76 Serious Crime Act 2015) and two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
- •Sentenced to 27 months imprisonment (27 months for count 1, concurrent 6 months for counts 2 & 3).
- •Relationship with complainant since 2004, marked by controlling, abusive behaviour, including physical assaults and financial control.
- •Appellant isolated complainant, prevented her from contacting family and friends, insulted her appearance, and controlled her finances.
- •Appellant's behaviour caused significant harm to complainant's mental health and well-being.
- •Pre-sentence report indicated high risk of serious harm to complainant and medium risk to children.
- •Appellant appealed sentence on the grounds of a legitimate expectation of a non-custodial sentence based on judge's comments before plea.
Legal Principles
Legitimate expectation of a non-custodial sentence may arise if a judge's comments create a reasonable expectation of a specific sentencing outcome.
R v Gillam (1980) 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 237; R v CD [2018] EWCA Crim 571
A legitimate expectation is not created simply by adjourning for a pre-sentence report; the judge's comments must clearly indicate a specific expectation.
R v Stokes (1983) 5 Cr. App. R (S) 449; R v Houghton & Alexander (1985) 7 Cr. App. R. (S) 299; R v Norton & Claxton (1989) 11 Cr. App. R. (S) 143; R v Toni Page [2005] EWCA Crim 406
Sentencing guidelines for controlling or coercive behaviour and assault occasioning actual bodily harm were applied.
Sentencing Guidelines
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that the judge's comments did not create a legitimate expectation of a non-custodial sentence. The judge's remarks were appropriately cautious and did not guarantee a non-custodial outcome. The pre-sentence report was unfavorable, and the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.