Member Login

Sentence for harassment did not unduly interfere with appellant’s constitutional right to work

By: Hannah Godfrey BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against severity of sentence for harassment, on the grounds that: (a) the trial judge was correct to identify the offences as falling into the upper mid-range; (b) the most significant element in mitigation was the plea of guilty, which was entered only at trial, and the ultimate sentence more than reflected this mitigation; (c) the sentence related to two offences that were quite separate and the sentencing judge could have considered imposing consecutive sentences, but did not do so; and (d) the condition placed on the suspension of part of the sentence did not amount to undue interference with the appellant's constitutional right to work but was legitimate and proportionate.

Offences: two counts of harassment contrary to s.10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 (different injured parties)
Original sentence: two and a half years imprisonment with 12 months suspended for seven years on conditions, including that the appellant refrain from providing debt collection services directly or indirectly for seven years (first count); second count taken into consideration
Appeal by: defence
Outcome: appeal dismissed

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *