Court of Appeal Increases Sentence in R v Robert Evans Due to Undue Leniency and Offender's Dangerousness

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1520
Judgment on


In the case of R v Robert Evans [2023] EWCA Crim 1520, the Court of Appeal was presented with an application by the Solicitor General to review a sentence believed to be unduly lenient. The pivotal legal topics addressed pertained to the application of sentencing guidelines, assessment of offender dangerousness, and the imposition of an extended determinate sentence.

Key Facts

Robert Evans, aged 35, pleaded guilty to charges including breaching a restraining order, putting a person in fear of violence by harassment, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and theft. The offending behavior took place over four days in March 2023, where Evans engaged in a campaign of terror, assault, and humiliation against an ex-partner, in direct contravention of a restraining order crafted for her protection. His Honour Judge Glenn originally sentenced Evans to a total of three years’ imprisonment for these offences.

The case was underscored by several legal principles crucial in the criminal justice system. The Court of Appeal focused on:

  1. Assessment of Culpability and Harm: The court revisited the sentencing guidelines applicable to the harassment offences. It questioned the original classification of the offences as falling under Culpability B rather than Culpability A. The principles of categorization under the guidelines are critical as they set the baseline for the sentence’s starting point.

  2. Consideration of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: Relevant considerations include previous convictions and the history of non-compliance with court orders, which are considered aggravating factors. Mitigating factors cited included Evans’s guilty plea and personal circumstances.

  3. Dangerousness of the Offender: A key aspect of the case was the determination that Evans was a dangerous offender per sections 266 to 268 of the Sentencing Code. This legal principle pertains to the assessment of an offender’s potential risk to the public and whether they are likely to commit serious offences in the future.

  4. Extended Determinate Sentence: The imposition of an extended determinate sentence was deliberated due to its absence in the initial sentencing despite the judge’s finding of dangerousness. The court reviewed the principles of imposing such a sentence, including prerequisites of the offence’s qualification and the length of the initial term.


Upon review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the initial sentence was unduly lenient. The proper classification for the harassment offence should have been Category 1A, not Category 1B. This led to the imposition of an increased sentence for count 3, inclusive of counts 1, 5, and 7, to seven years’ imprisonment. Consequently, the Court of Appeal also imposed an extended determinate sentence of 10 years in total, acknowledging the offender’s dangerousness.


The Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Robert Evans serves as an elucidative example of the judicial process in reassessing sentencing where initial decisions may not have adequately reflected the severity of the offender’s conduct, nor the risks posed to the public. The Court’s methodical approach to applying legal principles related to sentencing guidelines and the recognition of dangerousness substantially increased Evans’s sentence, addressing both punitive and protective aspects of the justice system. This case underscores the importance of systematic evaluation in ensuring sentences serve justice and effectively safeguard the community.

Related Summaries