Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 742
Case No: 202501185 A2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT PORTSMOUTH
His Honour Judge Bowes KC
52SB0046822
REFERENCE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER
S.36 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Before:
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH
MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES
and
MRS JUSTICE STACEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
REX
-and-
MELANIE BURMINGHAM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Peter Ratliff appeared on behalf of the Solicitor General
Mr Thomas Acworth appeared on behalf of the Respondent Offender
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment Approved
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith:
The facts
"I was ... particularly struck by the subsequent impact of [the offending] on [the victim's] life. It was clear that what had happened with [the offender] had affected [the victim] in subsequent personal relationships and other aspects of her life. The trauma from her childhood rendered her vulnerable to unhealthy attachments and toxic relationships with subsequent boyfriends..."
The victim told the counsellor that she had been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder. The counsellor witnessed the symptoms of this, where the victim would display little or no emotion when relaying highly traumatic events.
The proceedings
"The plea entered by the accused does not encompass the facts underlying the 'Spanish doll' incident."
Otherwise, the plea was on a full‑facts basis. That basis of plea was agreed by the prosecution and the case was then adjourned for the preparation of pre‑sentence reports.
The offender
The PSR
"... [the offender] is a vulnerable adult who has limited experience of the criminal justice system and has never experienced prison before. [The offender] is an elderly woman with physical health conditions, her emotional wellbeing has been negatively affected from the ongoing court case and would be at risk of losing her accommodation if she was sent to prison."
The author recorded that the offender was petrified of the prospect of prison. Her health was a factor to be taken into consideration. She would lose her council‑owned property. The report suggested a community‑based sentence.
"...there is an absence of ongoing risk factors and/or criminogenic need that could contribute to [the offender] engaging in further offending or behaviours indicative of a risk of causing serious harm to others in the future..."
The sentencing remarks
"Put simply, your case is as serious as it could be."
" ...the sentence I pass is as follows, the starting point in this case is one of 2 years' imprisonment... I will reduce that by a small amount in relation to the fact you had no previous convictions, by one month, and then give you credit of approximately 10%. Overall, I have concluded the correct sentence here is one of 20 months' imprisonment, to which anyone considering the case now would think frankly is much too low. I now have to consider whether that sentence ought to be suspended, and whilst on the one hand, many might feel you richly deserve to go to prison, even if it is for a short time, I have to have regard to your age, the fact you have no other relevant convictions, and your health.
It is for those reasons I have concluded, following guidelines, that the sentence ought to be suspended for a period of two years. In addition, you will undertake 20, what are called rehabilitation activity requirement days."
The Solicitor General's submissions
The offender's submissions
i) The respondent was in an abusive relationship for three years during the indictment period;
ii) After the end of that relationship the respondent's former partner stalked her and she had to move house;
iii) The respondent's childhood was "negative" and she came from a dysfunctional family; and
iv) the respondent's mother committed suicide while she was a child.
He submits that although the offending was serious, there are a number of features that can support the decision to suspend. In summary they are:
v) The respondent's risk of reconviction was very low;
vi) The author of the PSR had proposed an intervention through a rehabilitation activity requirement;
vii) The impact of the sentence of immediate custody would have been more significant for the respondent than upon an offender who did not share her particular vulnerabilities, and he relies upon the greater impact of imprisonment on female prisoners.
Overall, while accepting that another judge may not have exercised their discretion to suspend the sentence, the judge's decision was, he submits, a proper exercise of his discretion and should be upheld.
Discussion and resolution