R v Barry Anthony Drain
[2024] EWCA Crim 945
R v Nicholas Ikunnah
16 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 40
Court of Appeal
A man was given a long prison sentence for harassing his ex-girlfriend and breaking the law in multiple ways. The appeal court thought the sentence was too harsh because the judge didn't follow the rules for giving sentences properly. They reduced his sentence.
Key Facts
- •Nicholas Ikunnah (appellant), aged 24, was sentenced to 39 months' imprisonment for nine offences stemming from the breakdown of a relationship with AH.
- •Offences included multiple breaches of a non-molestation order, disclosure of private sexual images, assault on an emergency worker, witness intimidation, and sending malicious communications.
- •The appellant pleaded guilty, mostly at a late stage, and had limited previous convictions.
- •The Crown Court sentenced without a pre-sentence report.
- •The appellant's offending involved a pattern of escalating harassment and threats towards AH and her new boyfriend, over a 14-month period.
- •The sentencing judge did not adequately explain the application of sentencing guidelines or the principle of totality.
Legal Principles
Principle of Totality
Sentencing Guidelines
Offence-Specific Sentencing Guidelines
Various Sentencing Guidelines (Breach of Non-Molestation Order, Disclosure of Private Sexual Images, Witness Intimidation, etc.)
Credit for Guilty Plea
Sentencing Guidelines
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part; total sentence reduced from 39 months to 31 months.
The Court of Appeal found the original sentence manifestly excessive due to inadequate application of sentencing guidelines, insufficient credit for guilty pleas, and failure to properly apply the principle of totality. The court adjusted individual sentences and the overall concurrent/consecutive structure.
Sentences on counts 2-9 (breach of non-molestation order and related offences) quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of 16 months imprisonment (reduced from 21 months).
The court considered these offences as a single course of conduct and applied the appropriate sentencing guideline for breach of a protective order, considering culpability and harm. The original sentences failed to consider these factors adequately.
Sentences on counts 12 and 13 (witness intimidation and malicious communication) quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of 9 months imprisonment each (reduced from 12 months).
Whilst recognising the serious nature of these offences, the court reduced the sentences to reflect the guilty pleas and apply the principle of totality more fairly. These sentences run consecutively to other sentences.