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 the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.[2026] EWCA Crim 1055
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Between
R EXCrown
London
WC2A 2LL
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT LEWES
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE GOLD KC) [47EE3464923]
Case No 2026/01005/A1 Friday 10 July 2026
B e f o r e:
LADY JUSTICE MAY DBE
MRS JUSTICE FARBEY DBE
HIS HONOUR JUDGE LICKLEY KC
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
____________________
- v –
Between
LEIGHTON ASHBY____________________Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)___________________Mr L Harris appeared for ApplicantMr J Franks appeared for Crown___________________J U D G M E N TDate 2026-07-10
[1]On 7 August 2025, having pleaded guilty before Brighton Magistrates' Court, the applicant was committed to the Crown Court for sentence in respect of one offence of causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal, contrary to sections 4 (1) and 32 (1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.[2]On 23 February 2026, in the Crown Court at Lewes, the applicant was sentenced by His HHJ Gold KC to two years' imprisonment. An order disqualifying him from contact with animals was made under section 34 of the 2006 Act. He was 20 years old at the time of the offence and 22 years old at the time of the sentencing hearing.[3]The applicant's co-defendant, Oakley Hollands, pleaded guilty to the same offence. He was sentenced at the same time as the applicant to a lesser sentence of 20 months' imprisonment. He was 18 years old at the time of the offence and 20 years old when he was sentenced.[4]The Registrar has referred the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence to the Full Court.
The Facts
[5]The applicant and Mr Hollands were students at Plumpton Agricultural College. They both came from agricultural backgrounds. On the night of 2 and 3 November 2023, they had been drinking alcohol. Despite drinking, Mr Hollands drove the applicant and two other students to the Ditching Beacon on the Sussex Downs. At some time between 11 pm and 1 am, they parked and walked as a group for around ten minutes, before Mr Hollands and the applicant ran on ahead as they had seen a sheep. The applicant and Mr Hollands chased the young ewe which became surrounded by the group. Shortly afterwards, the applicant put his arms around the ewe's torso and violently swung the ewe from side to side. The applicant whooped before putting down the ewe.[6]Thereafter, the applicant kicked the ewe five times to the head. The other two students asked to leave. Mr Hollands refused to give them the car keys. The applicant put his arm around the head of the ewe and punched it multiple times until it appeared that the ewe was concussed as it could not get to its feet. The applicant then dragged the ewe and smashed its head several times against a wooden fencepost. Mr Hollands, who recorded this violence on his phone, shouted: "Go on, kill it, kill it, kill it" and was laughing.[7]In a second clip from Mr Hollands' phone, the applicant is seen sitting on the distressed ewe, hitting and slapping it on the head. Mr Hollands was again laughing and encouraging the applicant to hit and kill it. A third clip showed a dead sheep with a close up of the jaw which had been totally obliterated.[8]In the period between the second and the third clips, fireworks or bangers had been inserted into the ewe's mouth and anus, and lit. The two other students, who had walked off towards the car, saw and heard fireworks explode. A fourth video clip depicted further damage to the carcass.[9]Eventually, the applicant and Mr Hollands re-joined the other two students and they all returned to Plumpton College. After they had arrived there, the applicant said to Mr Hollands:
"We need to wait a couple of weeks before we do that again", and then told the others "
Don't tell anyone about this".[10]One of the other two students asked for one of the videos to be sent to her. When a third party saw the video, the college was informed. On 6 November 2023, the college called the police. The ewe's ear tag was subsequently recovered from some toilets at the college. Both the applicant and Mr Hollands were excluded from the college. The applicant had no previous convictions.
The Sentencing Hearing
[11]At the sentencing hearing, the judge granted permission to Mr Franks (who appeared for the prosecution as he does before us) to read what was described as a community impact statement from DC Benjamin Herriott, who was the officer in charge of the investigation. DC Herriott purported to have provided the statement on behalf of members of the public.[12]The statement said that there had been in excess of 80 pages of correspondence from members of the public who had wished their "voices to be heard in this investigation". DC Herriott exhibited this correspondence to his statement. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service uploaded to the Crown Court Digital Case System what was described as "Supplement Community Impact Statement Correspondence" which comprised further correspondence about the case from members of the public. The correspondence from the public, whether or not exhibited to DC Herriott's statement, expressed horror at the crime.[13]We do not doubt that this was a serious offence, but the prosecution was under a duty to comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions. By virtue of Cr PD 9.5.19, a community impact statement may be prepared by the police to make the court aware of particular crime trends in the local area and the impact of those trends on the local community. We are unable to ascertain whether those who corresponded with the police fell within the local area. More importantly, nothing in any of the documents that we have seen refers to any trend in crime in the local area or at all. We fail to see how the evidence of DC Herriott, or the correspondence from the public, was admissible.[14]In addition, a number of the statements from members of the public make comments on the sentencing process or on how the applicant should be punished. As Cr PD 9.5.22 makes plain, opinions expressed in a community impact statement as to what the sentence should be are irrelevant, and judges should pay no attention to them. The supplementary correspondence, which was filed in a loose clip of documents, breached Cr PD 9.5.19, which requires community impact evidence to be filed in a witness statement or in an expert report. The decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to file these documents without regard to evidential requirements was ill-judged.[15]DC Herriott's witness statement was signed on 18 February 2026 and uploaded to the Digital Case System on 20 February 2026. The supplementary correspondence was put together in a clip dated 20 February 2026 and uploaded on the same day. As we have mentioned, the applicant was sentenced on 23 February 2026. It is a requirement under Cr PD 9.5.19 that community impact evidence is to be served upon the defence in good time. The reasons for that requirement may be readily understood. First, fairness demands that the defence be given adequate notice to consider and respond to evidence that may affect a person's liberty. Secondly, the maker of a community impact statement can be cross-examined on it or on its content: Cr PD 19.5.20. In the present case, the timing of the evidence left the defence with no meaningful opportunity to respond or to prepare for cross-examination. That was unfair.[16]In all these circumstances, the community impact evidence could not assist the judge, and does not assist this court.[17]In his sentencing remarks, the judge observed that the fact that the applicant came from a farming background and was studying at the college made his callous and "sadistic" behaviour all the more alarming and difficult to understand. He applied the sentencing guideline for animal cruelty. He noted that both parties were in agreement that the offence fell into Category 1A. He held that culpability was high (i.e. level A) because the applicant's behaviour had been sadistic, which is a level A culpability factor. He held that harm was high (i.e. Category 1) because the ewe had died. The starting point for a Category 1A offence is two years' custody. The category range is 26 weeks to three years and six months' custody.[18]The judge stated that the facts of the offence were truly shocking which made immediate custody inevitable. He noted the applicant's young age and previous good character. He referred to the pre-sentence report and mentioned the mental health assessment submitted in mitigation. He concluded that the appropriate sentence before reduction for the applicant's guilty plea would have been three years' imprisonment. Applying a one-third discount for the early plea, he reached the sentence of two years' imprisonment that we have already mentioned.[19]The judge went on to make an order disqualifying the applicant from (among other things) dealing in, owning or keeping animals for a period of ten years. The order applies to all animals.
The Grounds of Appeal
[20]On behalf of the applicant, Mr Harris essentially abandons a number of his written grounds of appeal and focuses on the judge's decision to impose immediate custody, rather than a suspended sentence order. He submits that the judge failed to provide a sufficient explanation for imposing a sentence of immediate custody and failed to apply the guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences ("the Imposition Guideline") when considering the question of whether the sentence should be suspended. He emphasises the evidence before the judge that the applicant has been diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder ("ASD"). The applicant was young at the time of the offence and there was evidence before the judge that he was immature for his age. Mr Harris submits that there had been a significant delay between the offence and charge, with no further offending during that period. He submits that these various factors amounted to strong personal mitigation and to a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community. He contends that the judge had failed to weigh these factors as indicating that a suspended sentence order may be appropriate, as set out in the Imposition Guideline.[21]We accept that, given the applicant's age and his ASD, the judge should have referred to the Imposition Guideline and balanced the applicable factors for and against a suspended sentence order under the Imposition Guideline. However, given the seriousness of the offence, we are in no doubt that the judge was entitled to conclude that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody.[22]Mr Harris made submissions orally to the effect that the judge was wrong to conclude that the offending constituted "sadistic behaviour" for the purpose of level A culpability under the animal cruelty guideline. We do not see how that question is relevant to the only ground of appeal that has been advanced before us. We have been given no reason to consider that it is relevant to whether a suspended sentence order should have been imposed.[23]Given the level and nature of the cruelty inflicted by the applicant, we agree with the judge that immediate imprisonment was called for. It is not reasonably arguable that the sentence ought to have been suspended. For these reasons, leave to appeal is refused. _________________________________ 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 ______________________________