When sentencing for harassment, the court must look to previous failures to obey court orders, the defendant’s mental health, and his readiness to undergo treatment, as well as the seriousness of the conduct constituting the harassment. ‘For a second offence longer sentences of about 15 months on a plea of guilty would, in our view, be an appropriate starting point, and from then on it is possible to see from the maximum of 5 years fixed by the statute for this offence where each case fits into the statutory framework, working from the figure of 15 months, which may be appropriate on a plea of guilty.’
and ‘In our judgment, the level of sentences in cases which preceded the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (and perhaps in some later cases) does not fully reflect contemporary requirements and opinion. We think that Parliament and society generally now regard domestic and other violence associated with harassment and molestation as demanding rather more condign deterrent punishment than formerly. In a somewhat different context, contemporary judicial opinion may be seen in the decision of this court in four appeals ….’
and: ‘In our judgment, sentences in committal proceedings for breaches of injunction under section 42 of the 1996 Act should, so far as possible, reflect this range of opinion. The qualifications to this to which Thorpe LJ referred in Lomas v Parle of course remain. In particular, there must be proportionate regard to the statutory maximum sentence in section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Great care must be taken, if there are concurrent criminal or civil proceedings, to ensure that sentences in two or more courts do not punish twice for the same thing.’
Curtis J
Times 26-May-1999, Gazette 09-Jun-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 1493, [2000] 1 CR App R(S), [1999] 3 All ER 816
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lomas v Parle CA 18-Dec-2003
The respondent had been sentenced to two months imprisonment for breaches of orders under the Act. The wife appealed, seeking to increase the sentence. The maximum sentence was two years.
Held: The court had to consider such cases in the light . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lomas v Parle CA 18-Dec-2003
The respondent had been sentenced to two months imprisonment for breaches of orders under the Act. The wife appealed, seeking to increase the sentence. The maximum sentence was two years.
Held: The court had to consider such cases in the light . .
Cited – Murray v Robinson CA 12-Jul-2005
M appealed from findings that he had been in contempt of court for three breaches of non-molestation injunctions.
Held: In this area, as in other areas, imprisonment needs to be reserved for those cases where imprisonment is necessary. It must . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 October 2021; Ref: scu.157893