R v Andrew Hodgetts
[2024] EWCA Crim 1284
R v Stuart Bell
26 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1013
Court of Appeal
A man was sentenced for harassing his ex-girlfriend. The appeal court thought his original sentence (4 years 4 months) was too long. They reduced it to 3 years because some of the crimes were less serious than the judge first thought.
Key Facts
- •Stuart Bell appealed his sentence for stalking, breaching a restraining order, perverting the course of justice, and forgery.
- •The original sentence was 4 years and 4 months' imprisonment.
- •The offenses stemmed from a bitter separation from his former partner, Emma Gibson.
- •Bell engaged in a course of abusive and threatening behavior towards Gibson, including sending intimate photos and recordings.
- •He forged Gibson's signature on a land transfer document.
- •He attempted to pervert the course of justice by implicating his nephew.
- •Bell had a prior conviction for harassing Gibson.
- •A co-defendant, Mandy Bell (his sister), was also involved and received a suspended sentence.
Legal Principles
Breaches of restraining orders committed after the Sentencing Act 2020 came into force should be charged under section 363(1) of that Act, but failure to do so doesn't invalidate proceedings.
R v Jowett [2022] EWCA Crim 629
On appeal, a sentence cannot be made more severe (section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).
Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Sentencing guidelines for stalking should be considered (Definitive Guideline issued by the Sentencing Council).
Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline
Sentencing should adhere to the principle of totality.
Case Law (implied)
Sentencing for forgery should consider factors such as breach of trust and financial loss, as seen in R v Cano-Uribe [2015] EWCA Crim 1824.
R v Cano-Uribe [2015] EWCA Crim 1824
Outcomes
The sentence for stalking was reduced from 32 months to 22 months.
The Court found the original sentence too high for an offense at the lower end of category 1B.
The sentence for forgery was reduced from 10 months to 4 months.
The Court considered the original sentence too high, given the lack of financial loss.
The sentence for perverting the course of justice (10 months) and the concurrent sentence for breaching the restraining order (3 months) remained unchanged.
The Court found these sentences appropriate.
A previously suspended sentence of 24 weeks was activated and made concurrent to the other sentences.
It was deemed appropriate in the interests of good order.
The total sentence was reduced from 52 months (4 years 4 months) to 36 months (3 years).
The Court applied the principle of totality to ensure a just and proportionate sentence.