R v Jordan Crewe [2025] EWCA Crim 741

[2025] EWCA Crim 741Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 15 May 2025
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMR JUSTICE GOOSEMRS JUSTICE EADY
Between
REXCrownJORDAN CREWEDefendantREFERENCE BY THE SOLICITOR GENERAL UNDERS.36 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988
REXJORDAN CREWE
Ms J Newcombe appeared for Attorney GeneralMr V Britton appeared for Offender
Approved Judgment
[1]His Majesty's Solicitor General applies for leave to refer a sentence to the court which she considers to be unduly lenient. In aggregate the sentence was one of two years' imprisonment imposed by Mr Recorder Rouch in the Crown Court at Cardiff on 18 February 2025. We give leave.[2]The details of the sentence are as follows. There were two indictments. On the first indictment there was one count which was an offence of harassment. On his plea of guilty the offender was sentenced to four months' imprisonment. On the second indictment there were three counts. Count 1 was an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour. On his plea of guilty he was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment consecutive to the sentence on the first indictment. On count 2, which was an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, on his guilty plea he was sentenced to 30 weeks' imprisonment concurrent to count 1. On count 3, which was an offence of intentional strangulation, upon his guilty plea he was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment concurrent to count 1. Those sentences in total made up the aggregate sentence of two years' imprisonment to which we have referred. There were other ancillary orders made to which it is not necessary for us to refer in any detail.[3]The offender's guilty pleas had been entered at the plea and trial preparation hearing for each indictment and gave rise to a reduction of 25 per cent that is not criticised. As we shall explain, there is also no dispute about the categorisation of the various offences, their starting points or category ranges. The essential focus on this Reference is on the Recorder's adjustments towards the end of the sentencing process on the basis of totality. The Recorder's decision to order that the sentence for count 1 of the second indictment should be consecutive to the sentence imposed on the first indictment is not separately criticised. Nor does the Solicitor General criticise the stated intention of the Recorder that the sentence on count 1 of the second indictment should reflect the overall additional gravity of the offending represented by counts 2 and 3 of that indictment. What is criticised is the various adjustments by which the Recorder reached the aggregate sentence that he imposed and the general level at which he sentenced the offences on the second indictment. The Solicitor General submits that the effect of those adjustments was that the aggregate sentence was unduly lenient.[4]For the offender, Mr Britton who has represented the offender in this court as he did before the court below, submits that the Recorder took all relevant features of the offending appropriately into account and that the sentences is justifiable, largely by virtue of the offender's age, his difficult upbringing and mental issues which were affecting him at the relevant time. The factual background[5]The offender is 27 years old, having been born on 6 July 1997. He and Laura Nash had been in an intimate relationship for about two years. It broke down in 2022. They had a daughter together.[6]On 28 March 2022 the offender was sentenced to 16 months' immediate imprisonment in relation to offences committed against Miss Nash. By 22 October 2022 he had been released on licence. On that day he barged his way into Miss Nash's home. He pushed her, causing her to fall backwards. A friend pushed him out of the house and locked the door. He went around the back and entered again through the patio doors. He was pushed out again. He then let down the tyres on Miss Nash's car and threw her car keys into the back garden.[7]He returned the following morning. He shouted through the letter box that he knew she was in bed with another man. He started pacing and then kicking the door. Miss Nash called the police. He ran away.[8]The offender was arrested that day. In interview he said that he and Miss Nash argued like any other couple, blamed her drug use, denied any verbal or physical abuse and denied attending her address on 22 October 2022.[9]Thereafter he was recalled to prison. From prison he sent Miss Nash unwanted messages, letters and phone calls. The communication was abusive and degrading. He repeatedly told her he loved her and asked her to drop the charges against him. He threatened to hurt her if she had a relationship with someone else. He threatened to hurt himself in order to pressurise her. He told her that he was aware of what she was doing while he was in prison.[10]The offender was released from prison on or around 12 May 2023. He had bail conditions not to contact Miss Nash. However, there was some agreed contact between them in relation to their daughter and their daughter's serious health condition.[11]On 6 June 2024 the offender was charged with harassment in relation to his actions between October 2022 and January 2023. That was the subject of the first indictment. He entered a guilty plea to that offence on 8 August 2024 which, as we have said, was at the plea and trial preparation hearing.[12]We then take the second indictment. On 27 October 2024 the offender was angry that another man had messaged Miss Nash. He pushed her down on the bed and bit her face leaving a bite mark. Her leg was bruised after it struck the bedside cabinet during the incident. The bite was the actual bodily harm which was the subject of count 2 of the second indictment.[13]Other behaviour by the offender towards Miss Nash between 30 September 2024 and 1 January 2025 included: i) sending constant text messages asking where she was or what she was doing; ii) activating a Tracker application on her phone without her knowledge. He used it to track her movements and then called her and/or texted her showing that he knew where she was; iii) threatening suicide to get his own way, including sending her videos with a dog lead around his neck looking like he was hanging himself from a tree; iv) controlling the clothing that she wore, making her change her clothes if he disapproved. As a result she wore baggy clothes continuously; v) grabbing her breasts or bottom in public, even though she told him to stop; and. vi) not allowing her to see her family unless he was present.[14]On 31 December 2024 Miss Nash drove the offender to and from a hospital visit with their daughter. On the way home the offender shouted at her regarding contact she had had with an ex-partner's sister. When they got home he called her a "slag" and her son a "cunt". Miss Nash told him to leave and then drove him to his hostel. He continued to shout at her in the car, threatening to wait outside her son's school and rip his head off and break his spine. He had a dog lead in his hand with which he hit the dashboard threatening Miss Nash with it. He climbed into the back of the car behind her seat, pulled her hair and the hood on her pyjama top. The motion and action from behind caused her to struggle to breathe whilst she was still driving the vehicle. That formed the basis of count 3, intentional strangulation.[15]When they arrived at the hostel he refused to get out of the car. When he did get out he took the car keys with him before trying to damage the passenger side door and gear box cover. Miss Nash sounded her horn for help. When he realised the police were coming the offender threw the keys back into the car and left.[16]On 2 January 2025 the offender was arrested and interviewed. He denied any offences but admitted breach of court bail, saying that Miss Nash contacted him and attended his address unannounced.

Antecedents

[17]The offender had five convictions for 11 offences: i) A conviction in 2016 for four driving matters committed in 2015 when he was 18 years old and for which he was fined and disqualified from driving. ii) A conviction in 2019 for sending a letter/communication or article conveying a threatening message, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 committed in 2018 when he was 21 years old and for which he received a community order. The last three convictions were of much more relevance: iii) A conviction in 2019 for pursuing a course of conduct when he was 22 years old which amounted to harassment and for which he received a suspended sentence of imprisonment. iv) A conviction in February 2022 for sending a letter of communication or article conveying a threatening message, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, committed in 2021 when he was 24 years old, for which he received two months' imprisonment. That offence was against Miss Nash. v) A conviction in March 2022 for four offences committed in January 2022, including possession of a knife, blade or sharp pointed article in a public place, sending via a communication network an offensive or indecent or obscene of menacing message or matter, contrary to section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act 2003, and criminal damage committed in 2022 when he was 24 years old and for which he received a total of 16 months' imprisonment. Those offences were also against Miss Nash.[18]The Recorder was informed of the previous convictions and that Miss Nash had been the victim of the last two.

Categorisation under the guidelines

[19]The offence of harassment, which was the subject of the first indictment, was agreed to fall within Category 2B. Culpability was high because of the prolonged period of harassment in a domestic abuse context. Treating the harm as falling within Category 2 was justifiable on the basis that this offence was not solely responsible for the significant psychological harm caused to Miss Nash. The starting point was therefore 36 weeks and the category range 12 weeks to 18 months. The Recorder accepted that the offence was aggravated by the offender's antecedents, was committed in a domestic setting and was committed on licence but he attached no weight to that, so as, he said, to avoid double-counting because the offender had been recalled to prison as a result of that offence.[20]The offence of controlling and coercive behaviour involved higher culpability because of the persistent action over a prolonged period, the multiple methods of control and conduct intended to maximise fear and distress. Harm was Category 1 because of the cumulative impact of the conduct. The Recorder identified as an aggravating feature that the offence was committed while on bail. The starting point for Category 1A was two years six months with a range of one to four years.[21]The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm was agreed to fall into Category 2B because of the offender's use of his teeth as a weapon equivalent. This offence too was aggravated by being committed while on bail. The category starting point was 36 weeks with a category range from a high-level community order to one year six months' in custody.[22]The offence of intentional strangulation was agreed to fall within Category 2B, giving a starting point of 18 months and a category range of one to three years' custody. Once again, the offence was committed while on bail and in addition the Recorder identified the history of violence against Miss Nash as a further aggravating feature.

Materials available to the sentencing court

[23]There were two effective victim personal statements from Miss Nash. In the first she described being diagnosed with PTSD, depression and suffering from panic attacks. She was taking medication, not sleeping, suffering from nightmares and night terrors and felt stressed and angry. She felt paranoid about her own friends and family and whether they spoke to the offender. She had been unable to engage in any new intimate relationship. She was always worried about whether the offender would appear and what he would do. She did not leave the house and did not socialise. She struggled to concentrate on her Open University degree course. She felt defeated and hopeless.[24]The second that was before the court was dated 11 January 2025. In it Miss Nash restated many of the effects described in her previous victim personal statement. She had hidden bruises and then withdrawn and lost contact with family and friends. She described a plan to commit suicide and ongoing problems with sleep, panic attacks, flash backs and mental health concerns. She wanted the offender to leave her and her children alone. She described herself as being a shell of the person she used to be.[25]In the period between those two statements, Miss Nash had, on 31 October 2024, sent an email in support of the offender saying that he had proved he could change. That was however before the further coercive behaviour that we have detailed above, as a result of which Miss Nash withdrew her email.[26]Some of the offender's medical records were before the court and referred to depression, taking Mirtazapine and being on and off ADHD medication.

Pre-sentence report

[27]The pre-sentence report gave details of a difficult upbringing, drug abuse, homelessness and deterioration of his mental health. He had a working diagnosis of ADHD and had previously stopped but now restarted taking medication for that and depression.

The sentencing hearing

[28]Having identified some overlap between count 1 and counts 2 and 3 of the second indictment, and categorised he offences as we have outlined above, the Recorder referred to the matters that had been raised in mitigation including in particular the offender's ADHD. The Recorder concluded that as a result of his previous convictions the offender knew that his conduct was intolerable and that accordingly his ADHD did not reduce his culpability.

The Recorder then said:

"What I do accept, during large parts of this period you were immature. I note that you have worked well with a charity organisation and I take into account the delay in relation to the first indictment, but that is limited, due to the further offending. I accept that you are showing some remorse now that you have been in custody and reflected upon what you have done to your former partner. I am glad to hear that the time of remand you have used well. You have an enhanced status and you have enrolled on courses that will hopefully reduce any potential risk to others. You know now that this relationship is truly over with the victim of this offence. It is agreed that there can only be a sentence of custody here. It clearly passes the custodial threshold. I have followed the imposition guidelines. I must pass the shortest possible sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. As I am sentencing you for a number of offences, the principle of totality applies. I must pass a sentence that is just and proportionate to the offending as a whole, I do not simply add up all the sentences. I will impose a sentence on the first indictment to reflect the harassment offence. I will then impose a consecutive sentence on the offence of coercive control that reflects all offending on the second indictment. That avoids the double counting of the cumulative impact that I have taken into account in this case. As I have mentioned already, there is an overlap between that offence and some of the other specific offences, in any event. Weighing up all the aggravating and mitigating features, the sentence for the harassment after trial would have been 40 weeks' imprisonment. I reduce that for credit for 30 weeks but for totality I reduce that further to 4 months. For the coercive control, the sentence after trial would have been 2 years and 8 months. With credit, that becomes 2 years, but I reduce that with totality to 20 months, but that will be consecutive to the sentence on Count 1 of harassment. For the offence of strangulation, the starting point after trial would have been 22 months. With credit, that is 16 months, but that will be concurrent. For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the starting point after trial would have been 40 weeks. With credit, that becomes 30 weeks. So the total sentence is 2 years' imprisonment."

The Solicitor General's submissions

[30]The Solicitor General takes no issue with the categorisation of the offences. She identifies the following aggravating and mitigating features. The aggravating features are previous convictions, the offence being committed on licence (the harassment only until recalled to prison), offences committed on bail (that being the ABH, the intentional strangulation and controlling or coercive behaviour), a proven history of violence or abuse towards the victim by the offender and that the offences were committed in a domestic abuse context (although that was not for the controlling or coercive behaviour so as to avoid double counting). The identified mitigating features are the offender's mental disorder/learning disability (ADHD), his difficult and/or deprived background, the determination and/or demonstration of steps taken to address his offending behaviour when in prison, his age and immaturity (he being 25 years old at the time of the harassment offence), delay (one year and nine months between arrest and charge, harassment only) and remorse.[31]The Solicitor General submits that the balancing exercise conducted by the Recorder was flawed in three particular respects. First, offending while on licence should have been regarded as an aggravating feature to which was weight given. That is not affected by his recall to prison which was a function of his having offended again while on licence and no double-counting would have arisen. Second, the Recorder's emphasis on the offender's immaturity was overdone. He was 27 when the last three offences were committed and there was no proper basis for treating his immaturity as a significant mitigating features. Third, little weight should have been given to his expressions of remorse about his behaviour in 2022/2023 at a time when he was continuing with the behaviour as reflected in the second indictment.[32]For these reasons the Solicitor General submits that the Recorder's balancing exercise was generous to the offender. However, she recognises, correctly in our view, that the overall outcome of the balancing exercise was that aggravating features outweighed the available mitigation and that being so a submission that there was an error in principle or that the Recorder's balance was one that was not open to him, would not succeed. The Attorney General therefore does not challenge the Recorder's treatment of aggravating or mitigating features as such, although she does maintain the submission that the overall balance was generous, which has some residual relevance.[33]As we have already indicated, the Solicitor General's main submission is founded on the principle of totality. The Solicitor General does not criticise the Recorder's decision to treat the offence under the first indictment and the offence under count 1 of the second indictment as requiring consecutive sentences, with other sentences being concurrent. However, if that structure and approach was to be adopted the additional criminality involved in counts 2 and 3 of the second indictment had to be reflected in the sentence imposed on count 1.[34]There is no sign that this was done. To the contrary, for no identifiable reason the Recorder reduced the sentence he would otherwise have passed under the first indictment and for count 1 of the second indictment. That was an error of principle that renders the overall sentence unduly lenient.

The offender's submissions

[35]Mr Britton submits that there is an overlap between count 1 of the second indictment and the conduct represented by counts 2 and 3 and submits that the adjustments made by the judge were reasonable. He points to the Recorder's express reference to the need to pass a sentence that is just and proportionate as a whole and submits that the Recorder achieved his aim.

Discussion and resolution

[36]In the light of the Solicitor General's concessions and the relatively limited scope of the attack on the sentence that was ultimately passed, we can resolve this Reference quite briefly. In our judgment the Recorder went wrong in two respects. First, we are unable to identify any principled reason for the final reductions of four months "for totality" for the offences of harassment and of coercive control. There was no overlap between them and in principle no reason to reduce the individual sentences below those that would properly have been imposed after a trial, subject of course to adjustment for his guilty plea.[37]Second, and more seriously, by directing that the sentences on counts 2 and 3 of the second indictment should be served concurrently and not making any other adjustment to the sentence on count 1, it is in our judgment clear that the Recorder failed to weight the sentence on count 1 to reflect the additional criminality represented by counts 2 and 3. This was a significant failing given that count 2 on a standalone basis merited a sentence of 30 weeks and count 3 a sentence of 16 months.[38]The cumulative effect of these two errors is a failure to reflect eight months' imprisonment on the first point and a failure to reflect some 23 months on the second point. On a purely mathematical basis, adding back these durations would have added approximately two-and-a-half years to the aggregate sentence that the Recorder in fact passed. However, this is not a mathematical exercise and while it strongly suggests that the sentence passed by the Recorder was unduly lenient, it does not follow that a simple arithmetical totting-up provides the answer to this Reference.[39]The question for us is what would have satisfied the need to pass a proportionate and just sentence reflecting all of the relevant features of the offending and the various aggravating and mitigating features that we have identified? This was without doubt a serious campaign of denigrating, coercive conduct over a period of over two years, undeterred by his return to prison and punctuated by incidents of violence including intentional strangulation. That said, the offender's mitigation, including his attested medical diagnosis, could reasonably be taken as having some impact on his culpability and there is a potential risk of over-sentencing where, as here, there is a course of coercive conduct with separately charged incidents that while fully deserving of separate prosecution and punishment may also be seen as incidents, albeit "headline" incidents, of an offender's overall coercive mindset and conduct.[40]We have stood back to consider what would have been an appropriate aggregate sentence for this course of offending. In our judgment the least aggregate sentence that could properly have been passed when due regard was had for the features we have identified was one that(a) restores the last reduction of three months arbitrarily allowed on the offence under the first indictment, and(b) gives proper weight in the sentence for count 1 of the second indictment to the additional criminality represented by counts 2 and 3.[41]In our judgment, that additional weighting should lead to an aggregate sentence for counts 1, 2 and 3 of not less than three years before reduction of 25 per cent for the offender's plea, leading to an aggregate sentence for those three offences of 27 months.[42]For these reasons we conclude that the sentence imposed by the Recorder was not merely lenient but unduly lenient and that this court should intervene. We do so by first quashing the sentence on the first indictment and substituting a sentence of seven months' imprisonment, and second, quashing the sentence on count 1 of the second indictment and substituting a sentence of 27 months' imprisonment. The aggregate sentence will therefore be 34 months. For the avoidance of any doubt that sentence is what we consider to be the lowest sentence that could reasonably be passed. The Recorder could have imposed a significantly longer sentence without fear of it being manifestly excessive. All other orders remain unchanged.