R v Daniel Dominic Jenkins

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice. This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It is not to be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved. Royal Courts of Justice IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION The Strand London WC2A 2LL ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT SOUTHAMPTON (HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETERS KC) [44SC0255825] Case No 2025/01959/A1 Friday 27 June NCN: [2025] EWCA Crim 1018 B e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE WARBY MRS JUSTICE MAY DBE HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHAUN SMITH KC (Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division) ____________________ R EX - v - DANIEL DOMINIC JENKINS ____________________ Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) _____________________ Miss E Shelley appeared on behalf of the Applicant ____________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Friday 27 June 2025 LORD JUSTICE WARBY: I shall ask Mrs Justice May to give the judgment of the court. MRS JUSTICE MAY: 1. On 27 March 2025, having pleaded guilty before Southampton Magistrates' Court to one offence of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and two offences of assault on an emergency worker by beating, the applicant was committed for sentence pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to be dealt with at the same time as other offences with which he was charged. 2. On 24 April 2025, in the Crown Court at Southampton, the applicant pleaded guilty to one offence of common assault (count 1), one offence of threatening behaviour (as a lesser offence to the count of affray on the indictment) (count 2), and one count of racially aggravated intentional harassment (count 5). He pleaded guilty also to an offence of using threatening or abusive behaviour, which had been sent by the magistrates via a section 51 schedule. At the same time, he purported to plead guilty to two counts on the indictment (counts 3 and 4) of assault on an emergency worker. But as these were the offences to which he had earlier pleaded guilty at the magistrates' court, the pleas at the Crown Court on indictment were a nullity. The offences were properly before the court for sentence having been committed for sentence under section 18 of the Sentencing Act. We would ask that the court record be amended to reflect the accurate position, namely that the two offences of assault on an emergency worker were committals for sentence from the magistrates, not convictions on indictment. 3. On 9 May 2025, the applicant was sentenced as follows: on count 3 (assault on an emergency worker), four months' imprisonment; on count 4 (assault on an emergency worker), ten months' imprisonment, those terms to be served consecutively to each other; on count 5 (racially aggravated intentional harassment), two month' imprisonment, to run consecutively; on the section 51 offence (using insulting words or behaviour), two months' imprisonment, again to run consecutively; on count 1 (common assault), two months' imprisonment, to run concurrently; on count 2 (threatening behaviour), two months' imprisonment, to run concurrently; and on the committal for sentence (causing unnecessary suffering to an animal), one month's imprisonment, to run concurrently. The total sentence was one of 18 months' imprisonment. 4. The applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence has been referred to the full court by the Registrar. The Facts 5. On 23 March 2025, two members of the public were on London Road, Southampton. They became aware of the applicant engaged in an altercation with someone who turned out to be his sister. As the witnesses watched, they saw the applicant deliver four kicks towards a dog being held by the applicant's sister. The applicant walked towards his sister and said aggressively into her face: "Come on, hit me, I'm not going to hit you first", causing her to fear violence. Some of that incident was caught on CCTV, the footage of which we have watched. It was clear that the applicant had either been drinking or taking drugs. Police officers, including Police Sergeant Jack Barnett and Police Constable Annabelle Terry, subsequently attended the scene and attempted to detain the applicant. He became aggressive once handcuffed. He lashed out with his hands and struck Police Sergeant Barnett in the chest. The sergeant attempted to take the applicant to the ground. His thumb became trapped in the handcuffs, causing an injury. The applicant was shouting aggressively: "Shit, cunt sister". He shouted that he wanted to "beat the fuck out of her". 6. The applicant continued to be aggressive to police officers whilst being conveyed to custody. He shouted abuse and obscenities at officers during his detention. The applicant threatened to "smash in" Police Constable Annabelle Terry's face and at one stage a spit hood had to be fitted. The applicant was abusive to detention staff and repeatedly used the word "faggot". We have seen body-worn footage of his behaviour in custody. 7. The applicant was subsequently taken to Southampton General Hospital with an injury to his forehead after he had been found to be headbutting the wall of his cell. He remained resistant and unpleasant. He used the words "faggot" and "pakis" whilst in the treatment area of the hospital, where other patients could hear what was being said. A number of police officers had had to be present to enable him to receive treatment. We have watched further body-worn footage of the applicant's behaviour whilst in hospital. At one point PC Terry lowered the applicant's spit hood so that he could receive treatment, whereupon he attempted to bite her. His teeth made contact with her fingers. As a result of the applicant's actions, both PS Barnett and PC Annabelle Terry sought treatment, as they knew that the applicant had hepatitis C. 8. Once he had been returned to the police station, there was an attempt to interview the applicant, but he refused to answer any questions. Sentence 9. The applicant was aged 39 at sentence. He had 24 convictions for 47 offences spanning the period January 2007 to August 2004, including six convictions for offences against the person and 14 public order offences. 10. According to the transcript, the judge took less than five minutes to sentence the applicant – a very short time considering that there were seven separate offences, the sentences for each of which needed at least some explanation. Having observed shortly that "there are guidelines..", the judge then referred to none in particular, proceeding instead simply to announce the sentences which we have noted above. The Proposed Grounds of Appeal 11. Miss Shelley, for whose written advice accompanying the proposed grounds of appeal and oral submissions today we are grateful, takes no issue with most of the sentences, save the two longest – four months and ten months' imprisonment - imposed for the two offences of assault on an emergency worker. In respect of these, she does not challenge the prosecution categorisation at sentence of the offences as category A2 in the relevant Sentencing COUncil guideline but submits that the sentences and the uplift applied to them were excessive. Category A2 has a starting point of a medium range community order, with a range of up to 16 weeks' custody. The base sentence has to be uplifted to reflect the fact that the offence was committed against an emergency worker (here police officers). The recommended uplift for a Cat A2 offence in the guideline is stated to be "a significantly more onerous penalty of the same type, or a more severe type of penalty". 12. Pointing out that the maximum for this offence is two years' imprisonment, Miss Shelley argues that taking six months and 15 months as the notional sentences before discount for the guilty plea was simply excessive. She says that either the starting sentence or the uplift was too high and that, as a consequence, the overall sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was excessive, either because the sentences for the two assault emergency worker offences were too high, or because the judge did not sufficiently take into account mitigation and totality. Discussion and Conclusion 13. Sentencing remarks are encouraged to be brief, but not where brevity comes at the expense of a proper explanation of the sentences passed. We, and no doubt the applicant and his representatives, would have benefited from understanding more of the judge's thought processes when sentencing here, particularly in relation to the two offences of assault on an emergency worker. 14. Category A2 in the guideline has, as Miss Shelley pointed out, a range of up to 16 weeks (i.e., four months). We can see why going to the top of the range would have been justified here, given all the aggravating factors, particularly the extent to which the applicant was acting under the influence of drink and/or drugs on the day in question, and taken together with his long list of previous convictions. We understand that an uplift may account for a rise to six months – possibly even more – but we doubt whether an uplift to the categorisation of an A2 offence would justify more than tripling it to 15 months. As we have said, there is nothing in the judge's sentencing remarks to explain how he arrived either at the base sentence or the uplifted sentence before discount for the guilty plea. The guideline itself indicates, in bold, that the judge should explicitly declare the result of both these steps: "The sentencer should state in open court that the offence was aggravated by reason of the victim being an emergency worker and should also state what the sentence would have been without that element of aggravation." 15. Having said this, however, the task of this court is to determine whether the overall sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. Miss Shelley submits that for these offences, all of which took place on the same day, 18 months' imprisonment is not a just or proportionate sentence. 16. We disagree. Here the offending took place in three separate locations: the street, the police station and the hospital, in each of which the applicant's behaviour was very concerning. Having watched the CCTV and the body-worn footage, it is evident that his violent abuse, which contained repeated racist and homophobic expletives, was loud and persistent. He has a record of similar offending. Some of the individual sentences might well have been higher. Others might have been ordered to run consecutively, rather than concurrently. The mitigation was slight, when compared to all the aggravating factors. 17. Taken altogether, we are satisfied that the overall sentence, whilst severe, cannot properly be described as manifestly excessive. 18. Accordingly, we refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence. As indicated at the start of this judgment, the court record needs to be amended to reflect the fact that the two offences of assault emergency worker were convictions following pleas at the magistrate’s court and not convictions on indictment. ________________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________ 8