Sentencing guidance for committal hearings
Syndicated from Nearly Legal » FLW case note
In Amicus Horizon Ltd v Thorley , Court of Appeal, May 30, 2012 (no transcript available yet), Mr Thorley appealed against an order sentencing him to prison for four months. Amicus Horizon had claimed for possession and an anti-social behaviour injunction against Mr Thorley after he had threatened both the employees of Amicus Horizon and his neighbours. The court made an interim injunction until the trial had been determined.
Mr Thorley was subsequently arrested for breaching the injunction and brought before the court. The court adjourned the question of whether Mr Thorley had breached the interim injunction to the trial and bailed him [I pause at this point to query what power the court had to bail him as on an arrest the matter must be finally dealt with within 28 days, but I digress]. Unfortunately, two months later, Mr Thorley was arrested again for two further breaches and these were also adjourned to the trial.
Mr Thorley was alleged to have breached the injunction by shouting and swearing at his neighbours and staff, being drunk and entering a communal lounge from which he was banned. He was sentenced to four months imprisonment and the judge also made a possession order against him.
Mr Thorley appealed to the Court of Appeal against the length of his sentence and the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s definitive guidelines in relation to breaches of anti-social behaviour orders also applied to breaches of ASBIs. The guidelines suggested that Mr Thorley’s conduct was at the lower end of the category of behaviour which caused a lesser degree of harm and distress. The sentence of four months, however, was at the top end of that category and it was reduced to six weeks.
This is an important case and one we really should have written up a bit earlier (for which we apologise – sorry we are just all very busy). Until now, the Court of Appeal had repeatedly knocked back submissions that a sentence was manifestly excessive because in the criminal courts, under the sentencing guidelines, the maximum he would have got would have been x and he in fact got y. The Court of Appeal had adopted a consistent line that there were no sentencing guidelines and it was a matter for the judge. This made sentences, even ones that appeared manifestly excessive, very hard to appeal against. (A good example is Longhurst Homes Ltd v Killen  EWCA Civ 402 – even before two of the most forgiving LJs a sentence of 9 months wasn’t overturned).
It always struck me as odd that a person being sentenced in the civil courts was treated differently to those who were guilty of exactly the same thing in the criminal courts. But, fortunately, no more. This case and the relevant guidelines should go someway to curbing the more outlandish exercises of judicial discretion.