BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Scamp, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 765 (20 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/765.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 765

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

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.

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 765
CASE NO 202403451/A1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT CANTERBURY
MS RECORDER WILSON
CP Nos: 46ZY1763123/46XY1902823/46ZY1662923

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
20 May 2025

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE FRASER
MR JUSTICE HILLIARD
MR JUSTICE CONSTABLE

____________________

REX
- v -
HARLEY SCAMP

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript 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)

____________________

MR C EVANS appeared on behalf of the Appellant
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT APPROVED
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

  1. MR JUSTICE CONSTABLE: The appellant was sentenced to a two-year community order for each of the following four counts to which the appellant had pleaded guilty: one count of robbery, two counts of using threatening behaviour with an intent to cause fear of violence and one count of having an article with a blade or point in a public place.
  2. The appellant was ordered to undertake 80 hours of unpaid work and a rehabilitation order requirement up to a maximum of 45 days. At the date of sentencing the appellant had been in custody for a total period of 277 days. Taking into account automatic release provisions this period in custody is the equivalent of having served a sentence of at least 554 days, or just over 18 months.
  3. The appellant appeals with leave of the single judge on the single ground that in light of the time served on remand the addition of a punitive element of 80 hours unpaid work rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.
  4. The facts of the offending

  5. The events giving rise to one of the two counts of using threatening behaviour with intent to cause fear and violence (count 1) and the appellant having an article with a blade or point in a public place (count 2) took place on 19~August 2023. At 11.45 am the complainant was walking home. He saw a dog running around without a lead. Nearby there were two tents on a bit of land opposite his garden. The complainant saw a female who he had previously seen to be in control of the dog and said to her that she needed to put the dog on a lead. She started to shout, swear and scream at him.
  6. The appellant then emerged from one of the tents and also started to shout at the complainant who went back to his home with his shopping. Shortly afterwards he walked his daughter to her friend's house because she was scared of the dog. The complainant dropped her off at around midday and when he returned the appellant came out of the tent with a wooden axe which was around 14 to 16 inches long with a curved blade and said: "I'll cut your head off with this. I'll kill you. This dog will kill you." The police attended at the scene and the appellant was arrested. He was searched and a 3 to 4 inch blade was found in his left trouser pocket.
  7. A little over a month later on Monday 18 September 2023 the events giving rise to the count of robbery (count 3) occurred. Just before midnight the robbery complainant, together with his friends, was approached by the appellant and another male and asked if they wanted to buy drugs. They did not. About five minutes later this complainant with his friends bumped into the appellant and another male close to Canterbury West train station. The unknown male asked the complainant to borrow his phone as he had run out of battery. The complainant allowed him and the appellant and the unknown male walked off still holding the phone. The complainant followed them through an alleyway under a railway bridge and the appellant and the unknown male started to run off. The complainant followed them, asking them to give his phone back in exchange for money. The appellant said he would hold the phone while the complainant paid them. The unknown male held onto the phone and the complainant tried to get it from him. There was some pushing and shoving and the appellant then punched the complainant to the head and caused him to drop the phone. The appellant and the unknown male then ran off through the park with the phone.
  8. In respect of the last of the counts (count 4) on 2 December 2023 at around 6.30 pm a further complainant was walking along Chatham High Street with his family members to celebrate his friend's birthday. The appellant's sister, the appellant's co-defendant Summer Scamp, shouted at this complainant's wife words to the effect: "What the fuck are you looking at?" The appellant then appeared and was being aggressive and shouting in an abusive manner. He was throwing his arms around, swearing and saying repeatedly: "Do you fucking want it?" The complainant was then bitten on his right arm by the dog belonging to Summer Scamp. The appellant then threw a bottle towards the complainant's group, although the bottle did not hit him. The complainant sustained injuries from the dog bite which required surgery.
  9. In his basis of plea, accepted by the prosecution, the appellant accepted that his actions were threatening. However he did not intend to actually cause any violence. He denied threatening violence with the dog and said he did not intentionally release the dog as he had sought to restrain it.
  10. Each of these offences, except count 4, was committed when the appellant was 17, although he was sentenced when he was 18.
  11. The sentencing judge first considered each of the four counts as if each were being sentenced in isolation, applying the relevant discount for a guilty plea and any relevant mitigation in each case. Having done so the judge arrived at the following sentences. For count 1, the maximum sentence was six months. The judge identified that this was a Category A2 offence. This was a correct categorisation. The starting point within the relevant guideline is a minimum level community order with a range of a band C fine to 12 weeks' custody. The judge considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating features including the appellant's age. She considered that after a 33 per cent discount for an early guilty plea. On this basis, she said she would have sentenced the appellant to a custodial sentence of six weeks. It can be seen that, no doubt in light of the aggravating features, including the appellant's previous convictions, the sentencing judge was sentencing this towards the top of the relevant category range, before discount.
  12. For count 2, the judge concluded that the possession of a bladed article justified a custodial sentence of nine months reduced to six months because of the guilty plea. Although she did not say so explicitly, the judge had correctly identified that the offending fell into Category A2 of the relevant guideline with a starting point of six months within a range of three months to one year's custody. The sentence of nine months before plea was again towards the upper end of the range. The judge also recognised that in light of the appellant's previous relevant conviction it was necessary to sentence the appellant after a plea to a minimum of four months' imprisonment rather than, for example, a community order, save where there were exceptional circumstances. In her overall sentence structure, it was open to the sentencing judge to conclude the lengthy period of custody the appellant had been subjected to constituted exceptional circumstances. The appellant had been on remand for 155 days for these offences.
  13. For the robbery, count 3, the judge concluded that if this was being sentenced in isolation the appellant would have received a sentence of six months' custody reduced from eight months to reflect a 25 per cent discount for the timing of the appellant's guilty plea. She identified the offending as Category C3 with a starting point of one year and a range of a higher level community order up to three years in the robbery guideline applicable to adults and also took into account the relevant factors in the youth specific robbery guideline. We do not criticise in any way the sentence of six months after plea. We note that the appellant had been on remand for 144 days for this offence, overlapping with his time on remand for counts 1 and 2.
  14. Finally, for count 4 the applicable range from the guideline was again identified correctly as a band C fine up to 12 weeks' custody. Having identified the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, the judge identified a sentence of eight weeks' custody reduced to six weeks on account of the guilty plea. The appellant had been on remand for 277 days for this offence, overlapping with the other counts.
  15. At this point the judge did not then aggregate the sentences and take account of totality in order to determine the total custodial sentence to which the appellant would have been sentenced but for his lengthy period on remand. The total of that sentence is one year and 12 weeks. There may have been a small reduction to reflect totality to a sentence in the order of 13 to 14 months. As identified earlier, the appellant had in fact been on remand for 277 days which is the equivalent of serving a materially longer sentence, namely one of just over 18 months.
  16. In these circumstances, whilst we quite understand the rational of sentencing the appellant to concurrent community sentences with a rehabilitation requirement as an effective sentence to meet the overall justice of the case, we agree with the helpful and succinct submissions of Mr Evans that the imposition of a punitive element by way of unpaid work is manifestly excessive where the appellant had already served 20 to 25 per cent more time in prison on remand than he would have done had the sentence simply been one of immediate custody. The time served more than sufficiently reflected the punitive element required by the overall sentence.
  17. The appeal is therefore allowed to the extent that the requirement for unpaid work is to be quashed. The rest of the sentence shall remain unaltered.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010