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 >> Mills, R. v [2016] EWCA Crim 672 (28 April 2016)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2016/672.html
Cite as: [2016] EWCA Crim 672
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT DBE
MR JUSTICE BLAKE
MRS JUSTICE ANDREWS DBE
____________________
| R E G I N A | ||
| v | ||
| CARL CLIVE MILLS |
____________________
WordWave International Ltd trading as DTI
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr A Walker appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- The appellant first appeared at the Magistrates' Court on 7th September 2015 charged with seven offences. Five offences arose out of an incident on 5th September 2015 involving his then partner and his parents. The other two offences of alleged assault occasioning actual bodily harm and breach of a restraining order related to an incident involving an ex partner on 29th July 2015.
- On 8th September the appellant gave no indication of plea, the court declined jurisdiction on all charges and he was remanded in custody to appear at the Crown Court. On 21st September he appeared for a preliminary hearing and the court set a timetable. On the first day of trial, 22nd February 2016, he indicated he would plead guilty to at least one of the charges. Negotiations took place and Mr Walker, who then appeared for the Crown and appeared before us this morning, was instructed to accept pleas to the three counts of assault and one count of criminal damage and to ask for the count of affray to lie on the file. No findings were ever made as to the value of the criminal damage. The alleged offences of 29th July were not pursued.
- Her Honour Judge Hughes QC sentenced the appellant as follows: count 2, assault by beating, five months' imprisonment; count 3, assault by beating, four months' imprisonment ordered to run consecutively; count 4, assault by beating, four months' imprisonment also ordered to run consecutively; count 5, damaging property, one month's imprisonment, also ordered to run consecutively.
- Initially, the appeal to this court on Mr Taylor's behalf was on the grounds that the sentence was excessive. During the course of consideration of the papers, the Registrar noted that some of the sentences were unlawful, because together they exceeded the powers of the Magistrates' Court. Both parties, having considered all relevant provisions, now agree that the maximum sentence that the judge could have imposed for counts 3 and 4 on the facts of this case was six months' imprisonment. Arguably, the same restriction does not apply to the criminal damage offence because no findings as to value have been made. However, it was not contended before us that we should consider increasing the sentence on the criminal damage.
- We have no option therefore but to quash the orders making the sentences on counts 3 and 4 consecutive. The sentences will stay as they are but will run concurrently. Count 5 will still run consecutively to count 2, making a total of six months' imprisonment in all.
- As we have observed during the course of argument, this leads to a sentence that fails to reflect the gravity of the offending. The appellant pleaded guilty to assaulting his then partner and his parents in their own home and he smashed up their home. He has an appalling record for offences of violence and threatening behaviour, particularly in a domestic context, and for breaches of court orders. His own parents have expressed their fear of what he might do in the future. In our judgment, scant regard to the over arching principles for sentencing in cases of domestic violence seems to have been paid by those instructing prosecuting counsel to accept the pleas. We understand that occasionally decisions are taken on a pragmatic basis, but this case should have involved consideration of the future protection of all those the appellant meets in a domestic context. Accordingly, we have invited Mr Walker to make our views known to the Crown Prosecution Service for the relevant area.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: