England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Woods, R v [2015] EWCA Crim 2533 (15 July 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/2533.html
Cite as: [2015] EWCA Crim 2533

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Crim 2533
		No: 201500295 A8

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2

Wednesday 15 July 2015

B e f o r e :

LADY JUSTICE MACUR DBE
MR JUSTICE HOLROYDE
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BIDDER QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
____________________

	R E G I N A
	v
	MICHAEL WOODS

____________________

Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Wordwave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

Non-Counsel Application
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

MR JUSTICE HOLROYDE: This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on 17 December 2014 in the Crown Court at Southwark. Having pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court to a number offences, the applicant had been committed to the Crown Court for sentence. For offences committed on 9 October 2014, comprising two offences of assault by beating and for breach of a restraining order, he was ordered to serve concurrent terms of imprisonment of three months, three months and sixteen months' imprisonment. For two further breaches of the restraining order on 24 and 25 October 2015, he was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment in each case, those sentences being concurrent one with the other but consecutive to the other sentences. At the time of committing those several offences the appellant had been subject to and was therefore in breach of a suspended sentence imposed on 8 September 2014. That suspended sentence of twelve months was activated in full and was ordered to run consecutively to the other sentences. Thus, the total sentence was one of three years' imprisonment.

All the offences were committed at the home of the applicant's parents in breach of a restraining order which prohibited him from entering that property. His father has the misfortune to suffer from a serious disease affecting his intellectual function and his balance. His mother is not in robust health, suffering from asthma.

When in drink, as it seems he has frequently been, the applicant has persistently gone to their home, caused trouble and made their lives a misery. On 9 October 2014 he barged into the house, pushing his father aside. He ignored repeated requests to leave, caused his mother pain by grabbing her wrist, kicked a stereo speaker, punched a wall, used foul language to both parents and raised his clenched fists towards his mother's face. His father had at that point intervened and the applicant had pushed him against a wall before leaving. On both 24 and 25 October the applicant had returned to the house but was not allowed in. It was apparent to a police officer who attended the property on 25 October that the applicant's conduct caused his parents considerable stress. The applicant's mother spoke of the fear that both parents felt, her constant anxiety that he would come to the house and their wish to be able to live their lives without fear.

These offences need to be set in context. The applicant, now aged 44, has in the past been convicted of forty-four offences, many involving assault, disorder and drunkenness. In March 2011 he was made subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for assault on one of his parents and was made subject to a restraining order forbidding him from approaching or contacting his parents and from entering his parents' home under any circumstances. He breached that order no fewer than six times between April 2012 and September 2014 during which period the order was extended in duration. The offences presently before the court represent breaches 7, 8 and 9 of the restraining order.

In his sentencing remarks the judge accepted that the applicant was remorseful when sober but said that there must be a significant prison sentence. He referred to the sentencing guidelines. There was no victim impact statement but the judge held that the inference was obvious that parents experiencing that sort of behaviour, not knowing from day to day whether the appellant would show up the worse for drink and cause trouble, must inevitably suffer significant psychological harm from it. He therefore put the case into the most serious category of the relevant sentencing guideline. The judge then identified the serious aggravating features: the vulnerability of the applicant's parents through ill health and the applicant's repeated breaches of court orders. The judge gave full credit for the guilty pleas. He imposed the sentences which we have summarised above and he directed that the restraining order should now continue until further order.

In written grounds of appeal it was submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive in length, in particular because there was no evidence of significant physical or psychological harm. Like the single judge who refused leave on the papers, we reject those grounds of appeal. The judge was entitled to find significant psychological harm on the basis of the evidence of the applicant's mother and the inescapable inference from all the circumstances. Given the applicant's repeated breaches of court orders in the recent past, the other aggravating features of the case and the fact that short prison sentences imposed in the past have not caused him to alter his behaviour, a significant term of imprisonment was inevitable. Nothing whatsoever has been put before us to challenge the very clear reasons which the single judge gave for refusing leave. We can see no possible basis on which it could be argued that the total sentence was manifestly excessive in length.

The renewed application accordingly fails and is dismissed. Consideration of it has regrettably occupied the time and the court staff of this court, thus delaying the hearing of more meritorious appeals. It is in our judgment a case in which the applicant should suffer some loss of time. We direct that fourteen days of the sentence which he has served to date should not count towards his total sentence of three years' imprisonment.