SW, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 127
[1]prohibition continues unless waived or lifted.[2]in respect of the restraining order breach. The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge. No issue is taken with the finding of dangerousness or the extended sentence imposed. The appeal is directed solely at the length of the custodial term.[3]to which we have referred was imposed.[4]his ability to manipulate to exploit for his own ends.[5]observed.[6]level, category A, with a starting point of 10 years, and a range of up to 13 years.[7]total custodial element of the sentence would have been 16 years.In written grounds of appeal that have been developed orally, Mr Charles Langley of counsel
[8]contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive for four reasons: First, he submits that the starting point of 16 years for all the offences was too high.[9]restraining order.[10]double counting.[11]a number of health problems.[12]Nor, in our judgment, was there any double counting.[13]a notional sentence of 16 years was not arguably manifestly excessive.[14]to indicate that they justified any reduction in sentence in the circumstances of this case. In conclusion, the judge had proper regard for totality, and we are quite satisfied that the overall sentence before credit, of 16 years, was commensurate with the gravity of this course of criminal conduct and not disproportionate to it. The application is therefore refused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk