R v Jack Hartland
[2023] EWCA Crim 790
R v Jonathan Da Silva
20 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1624
Court of Appeal
A man was given a lenient sentence for violently abusing his partner. The judge should have given him a prison sentence, so a higher court changed the sentence to 22 months in prison, but suspended it (meaning he won't go to jail unless he breaks the law again).
Key Facts
- •Jonathan Da Silva (35) was convicted of two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, one count of intentional strangulation, one count of making a threat to kill, and one count of controlling or coercive behaviour.
- •The offences occurred within a domestic relationship spanning August 2021 to August 2022.
- •Da Silva initially pleaded not guilty but later pleaded guilty to all five counts.
- •He was sentenced to an 18-month community order with various requirements.
- •The Attorney General referred the sentence as unduly lenient.
- •Da Silva had previously good character and showed remorse; however he had a history of violence and drug and alcohol use.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, threats to kill, coercive and controlling behaviour, and intentional strangulation.
Sentencing guidelines and R v Cook [2023] EWCA Crim 452, R v Borsodi [2023] EWCA Crim 899
A court must apply sentencing guidelines unless it finds it is not in the interests of justice to do so.
Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.36
Principles of totality in sentencing; it's inappropriate to simply add sentences together for separate offending.
Sentencing guidelines on totality
Factors to consider when deciding whether to suspend a custodial sentence, such as risk to the public, adequate punishment requiring immediate custody, and history of poor compliance with orders; mitigating factors include prospect of rehabilitation, strong personal mitigation, and significant harmful impact on others from immediate custody.
Sentencing guidelines on suspending sentences
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the reference and quashed the original sentence.
The original sentence was considered unduly lenient given the seriousness of the offences, the aggravating factors (domestic context, history of violence), and the fact that the judge did not provide sufficient justification for departing from the sentencing guidelines.
A sentence of 22 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, was imposed, with the original community order requirements attached.
This sentence reflects the gravity of the offences, considers mitigating factors such as remorse, good character and Da Silva's engagement with probation following the original sentence, and balances the need for punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation.