R v Michelle Ellis [2025] EWCA Crim 1297

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. This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It is not to be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

[2025] EWCA Crim 1297

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

London

WC2A 2LL

Venue ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LEEDS

Between

R EXCrown

(HIS HONOUR JUDGE MANSELL KC) [13LD1263623]

Case No 2024/03397/A1 Friday 8 August 2025

B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE LEWIS

MRS JUSTICE McGOWAN DBE

MR JUSTICE MORRIS

____________________

- v -

Between

MICHELLE ELLIS

____________________

Computer Aided Transcription 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)

_____________________

Non Counsel Application

____________________

J U D G M E N T

Date 2025-08-08

[1]We make a direction pursuant to section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act that no matter relating to any person who is under the age of 18 is to be included in any publication if that is likely to lead to any member of the public to identify that person. This order ends when that person attains the age of 18.

[2]On 13 October 2023, the applicant, who is now aged 46, was made the subject of a non-molestation order by the Family Court in Leeds. That order prohibited her from doing various acts in relation to her husband and her children.

[3]On 8 March 2024, in the Crown Court at Leeds, having earlier pleaded guilty at the magistrates' court and been committed for sentence to the Crown Court, the applicant was sentenced for three offences of breach of the non-molestation order, contrary to section 42A(1) and (5) of the Family Law Act 1998, and for one offence of stalking involving serious alarm or distress, contrary to section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On each offence His Honour Judge Mansell KC imposed a community order for 12 months, with a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 15 days, to be served concurrently.

[4]In deciding on the appropriate sentence, the judge had regard to the facts of the case, to the appellant's mental health, and to the fact that she had no previous convictions. He had regard to the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines.

[5]In relation to the breaches of the non-molestation order, he assessed culpability as category A and harm as category 2. The starting point for each offence was 12 months' custody, with a range of sentences from a high level community order to two years' custody.

[6]In relation to stalking, the judge assessed culpability to be high, category B, and harm as category 1. Under the guidelines for stalking in breach of section 2 of the Act, the starting point is a community order. In fact, the applicant's offence was contrary to section 4A. The judge could have referred to different guidelines which provided for more severe sentences. In any event, he imposed a community order.

[7]The applicant applied for leave to appeal against that sentence. The application was refused by the single judge. She now applies for an extension of time (90 days) in which to renew that application and for leave to appeal against sentence.

[8]We have read the papers in this case. They include, but are not limited to, the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal and the letters sent to the court. We have read carefully the judge's sentencing remarks.

[9]In refusing leave to appeal, the single

judge said this:

"1. I appreciate that it is not easy to draft grounds of appeal on your own and that you have found court proceedings extremely stressful. 2. However, the only court order you have appealed against to me is in respect of the sentence passed on you at Leeds Crown Court for breaching a non-molestation order and for stalking. 3. It is important to understand that I am therefore only considering a possible appeal against sentence and not the circumstances in which the non-molestation order was made or the circumstances in which you pleaded guilty to these offences. 4. So far as the sentence is concerned, you received a community order for 12 months with a requirement that you attend 15 days of Rehabilitation Requirements. This order was designed to help you. 5. Sentencing guidelines for your offences suggest that a sentence of custody could often be appropriate. The judge appears to have applied a more generous guideline for the stalking offence and not the guideline for a section 4A offence. He took account of your personal circumstances and decided to make a community order. He had good reason to doubt that you would co-operate with any further report. There is nothing wrong with the sentence he passed and there are no good grounds for criticising it. 6. You also need a very long extension of time. I would only grant that if there were any grounds for appealing against the sentence. As I have said, I have not been able to find any grounds and so the application for the extension of time must also be refused. 7. I know that this will come as a disappointment to you. I have, however, looked at everything very carefully and I cannot see any grounds for an appeal against sentence."

[10]We agree with those observations. We understand that this will be a disappointment to the applicant, but, like the single judge, we cannot see any arguable grounds for appealing against the sentence that was imposed in this case.

[11]As there are no arguable grounds, there is no purpose in granting an extension of time in which to renew the application.

[12]Accordingly, we refuse the application for the extension of time and we also refuse leave to appeal. _____________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk ______________________________