Hartland, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 790 (29 June 2023)

Hartland, R. v [2023] EWCA Crim 790 (29 June 2023)

The original sentence was unduly lenient. The offences were grave, persistent, and involved multiple aggravating features. Each offence passed the custody threshold by a significant margin, and only an immediate custodial sentence was appropriate. The judge erred in imposing a community order without a punitive element and failed to properly apply the totality principle. The minimum aggregate sentence that could properly be imposed was three years' imprisonment concurrent on each count.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Crim 790
Parties
Appellant: Rex; Respondent: Jack Hartland
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Unduly Lenient Sentence Reference
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original sentences quashed and substituted with immediate custodial sentences.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Domestic Abuse, Coercive and Controlling Behaviour, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Intentional Strangulation, Community Orders, Custodial Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Domestic Abuse Coercive and Controlling Behaviour Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Intentional Strangulation Community Orders Custodial Sentences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Appellant

Jack Hartland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Unduly Lenient Sentence Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original sentence was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Appropriate categorisation and sentencing for coercive and controlling behaviour, intentional strangulation, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm
  3. 3 Application of sentencing guidelines and totality principle

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence was unduly lenient. The offences were grave, persistent, and involved multiple aggravating features. Each offence passed the custody threshold by a significant margin, and only an immediate custodial sentence was appropriate. The judge erred in imposing a community order without a punitive element and failed to properly apply the totality principle. The minimum aggregate sentence that could properly be imposed was three years' imprisonment concurrent on each count.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original sentences quashed and substituted with immediate custodial sentences.

Orders

  • All sentences passed below quashed.
  • Substitute sentence of 3 years' imprisonment on each count, concurrent.