The Court of Appeal has dismissed a man’s appeal against a three-year prison sentence for assault causing harm, finding that the sentencing judge made no error in principle. The final 12 months of the sentence had been suspended subject to conditions.
The appeal concerned an assault on Christmas Day 2018. The appellant pleaded guilty to that charge after a jury had been sworn. The agreed basis of the plea was that two other assaults and a false imprisonment charge would also be considered at sentencing.
The judgment describes three incidents between October 2018 and February 2019 involving the appellant and the victim, who were married at the time and had two children. In October 2018, he kicked her in the back and kept her on the ground with his foot, causing bruising. On Christmas Day, he dragged her to the front door, threw her outside, and later pulled her hair and bent her fingers as he dragged her back into the house. She spent that night in hospital. In February 2019, he kicked her legs, directed her into a utility room, flicked cigarette ash on her and blew smoke in her face.
The court said the children witnessed each incident and came to their mother’s assistance. The sentencing judge treated the repeated violence, the children’s presence, the head injuries and the family relationship as aggravating circumstances. He also considered the guilty plea, lack of previous convictions, counselling, cooperation with probation services and apology as mitigating factors. The probation report described the appellant as presenting a moderate risk and having potentially limited insight into his wrongdoing.
The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the sentencing judge had given too little weight to mitigation, including his work history, remorse and efforts to rebuild a relationship with his sons. The prosecution submitted that the sentence was careful and proportionate to the seriousness of the offending.
The Court of Appeal noted that the sentencing judge had referred to section 40 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018, although it was not in force on the date of the Christmas Day offence. The court said the judge had also treated the domestic setting as aggravating in its own right, so the reference did not establish an error in principle.
The court distinguished the comparator cases cited by the appellant, saying this sentence addressed three assaults and a false imprisonment charge over four months, in the family home and in the children’s presence. It concluded the sentence was within the sentencing judge’s margin of appreciation and dismissed the appeal. The appeal court did not resentence the appellant.