The Case of R v Shah [2024] EWCA Crim 50

Introduction to the case 

The case of R v Shah was heard by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on 18th of January 2024, before Lady Justice Andrews, Mr Justice Jay, and His Honour Judge Andrew Lees.1 The appellant (accused) was represented by Mr. B Robinson; whereas Mr. N Coxon appeared on behalf of the Crown for the case. This appeal concerns the sentence imposed upon the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to three counts on the offences of stalking, disclosing private sexual images, and criminal damage. 

In this case, the appellant challenged the total sentence of three years imprisonment, putting forth the contention that the sentencing judge misapplied harm and culpability categories, failure to apply full credit for guilty pleas, and have erred in the imposition of consecutive sentences. However, the Court of Appeal found it neither disproportionate nor unjust given the gravity, persistence, and aggravating features of the appellant’s conduct and upheld the sentence. 

Facts of the case 

On 3rd of March 2023, the appellant, then aged 23, pleaded guilty to three offences at the hearing in the Crown Court of Sheffield. The appellant’s former partner, hereinafter referred to as “A”, was the victim to all three offences to this case. The victim and appellant’s relationship was built upon an intermittent foundation that lasted six years, ending on 5th of November 2022. 

From the constant unwanted contact, abusive messages sent, and distribution of private sexual images to the victim’s family and acquaintances without consent, the appellant’s abusive behaviour and harassment warrants legal action. On top of that, the harassment escalated after their final separation on 5 November 2022 with multiple late-night calls and messages, breaches of bail, and criminal damage to A’s vehicle. 

All three offences well stretch over different periods. The first count of indictment refers to the conduct of between 20 October 2022 and 17 February 2023 on stalking which caused serious alarm or distress, contrary to Section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. As for the second count, it was on the disclosure of private sexual photographs that happened from 7 March 2022 to 17 February 2023, contrary to Section 33(1) and (9) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. 

The third and final count was on criminal damage, which has been notably sent for trial by the Magistrates’ Court pursuant to Section 51(3) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This stems from a singular event on 14 February 2023, where A’s car suffered from serious damage (further inquiries found to exceed £8,000) which resulted in a write-off and financial impact. However, the case was adjourned for a pre-sentence report. Following the breaches of bail and further offending, the appellant was arrested and remanded in custody, where it was treated as aggregating factors rather than separate charges. 

Subsequently, on 23rd of May 2023, the appellant was sentenced to a total of 3 years imprisonment (18 months for the first count, 9 months consecutive for both count 2 and 3 respectively) by His Honour Judge Kelson KC. As such, the appellant appealed against the sentence with leave granted. 

Legal Issues and Arguments 

• Whether the sentencing judge erred in the categorisation of harm and culpability for the offence of stalking 

The appellant argued that the level of harm attributed to the offence of stalking has been overstated. In furtherance to that, it has been put forth that the harm ought to be categorised within a lower level, subjected to the lack of medical evidence and absence of any significant lifestyle changes suffered by the victim. As for the culpability categorisation, it was argued that the offending was occasional rather than persistent. From the appellant’s perspective, the sense of desperation and lack of threats of violence render such acts to fail as being labelled as stalking. 

The respondent however affirmed that the judge had correctly categorised the high level of harm and culpability in this case, supported by the continuous and deliberate conduct of the appellant causing serious distress to the victim. From the vulgar words to threats sent by the appellant to the victim and people around her, the extended conduct has caused A to be on the edge all the time with great sense of danger.

• Whether the sentencing judge erred in sentencing totality, including the imposition of consecutive sentences rather than a single aggregate sentence 

The appellant argued that the sentencing judge has erred in the imposition of consecutive sentences rather than a single aggregate sentence to reflect totality. In the written grounds, it has been submitted that the sentence should be passed on the first count which was aggravated by the other two matters. 

The respondent submitted in agreement to the imposition of the consecutive sentences, rendering it to be justified and proportionate in accordance with the Totality Guideline as has been highlighted in the case of R v Bailey. With that, efforts had been made to impose consecutive sentences instead of reflecting the overall criminality of the offences committed. 

• Whether the appellant was entitled to full credit for a guilty plea with consideration of the procedural history 

The appellant argued that the full credit for a guilty plea should have been given based on the intentions expressed before the Magistrates’ Court. This is highlighted in the instance where the appellant did not plead guilty before the Magistrates’ Court, though it was said that he intended to do so but the value of damage was then in dispute. The respondent on the other hand stands firm on the fact that the 25% credit for guilty plea was correctly decided by the sentencing judge on a procedural basis. 

• Whether the sentencing judge improperly limited the sentence to a single offence on the second count 

The appellant argued that the sentence on the offence of disclosure of private sexual photographs failed to reflect the multiplicity of the offending fully. This argument stems from the contention that the judge’s interpretation of the indictment refers to a single offence rather than multiple offences. 

The respondent had indicated to the court that this was in fact a multiplicity of offences that had been committed over a period of time, in which the defence had not been taken by surprise. With the case opened on that basis, the possibility of the indictment’s wording to be interpreted as a single offence shall not be prejudicial to the case.

Court’s Decision and Legal Reasoning 

The Court of Appeal analysed the sentencing categories and found the judge’s categorisation of both harm and culpability for the offence of the first count to be justified. The repetitive and persistent nature of the appellant’s actions, supported by the breach of bail conditions, were sufficient to amount to stalking. 

In terms of the issue of totality in sentencing, the court emphasised that the structure of consecutive sentences does not render a sentence to be disproportionate as compared to a single aggregate sentence. Hence, the sentence given of 3 years imprisonment was found to be proportionate considering the nature of the offences. Notably, the court relied on the principle established in R v Bailey, where the overall sentence is required to be just and proportionate, and consecutive sentences do not necessarily indicate disproportionality.2 

As for the credit for guilty plea, it was reaffirmed that the sentencing judge was right to impose only 25% due to the fact that the appellant had not pleaded guilty at the Magistrates’ Court stage. In regards to the second count, the court acknowledged that the Crown had clearly indicated for the word indictment to refer to multiple offences. Given the judge’s benign approach and reflection of a notional sentence after trial of 12 months, the sentence imposed was indeed reasonable considering the evidence and mitigating factors presented before the court. 

Conclusion 

The appeal by the appellant against the sentence has been dismissed by the England and Wales Court of Appeal. The sentencing judges’ approach to the categorisation of harm and culpability, credit for guilty plea, and the imposition of consecutive sentences has been upheld by the court. Not only does this decision provide a confirmation that persistent and deliberate stalking and associated offences warrants punishment, it also clarified that the sentencing judges are conferred with the discretion to structure sentences for multiple offences, provided that the overall sentence is just and proportionate. 

The significance of this case serves as a precedent to cases on stalking in the UK and other jurisdictions. For instance, much reference can be drawn by the Malaysian case of Public Prosecutor v Lee Soon Keng in determining the offence and sentencing for stalking.3 Given that Section 507A of the Penal Code has been newly introduced, and no reported cases are available in Malaysia for the Magistrate Court to take guidance, it poses a tough question for the court to determine a proper sentence. Thus, with strong inference drawn by the Malaysian Parliament from the Protection from Harassment Act 2014, this case could potentially fill up the gap within the legal fraternity. 

Reference(S): 

1. R v Shah [2024] EWCA Crim 50 
2. R v Bailey [2020] EWCA Crim 1719 
3. Public Prosecutor v Lee Soon Keng [2025] MLJU 2186 

1 R v Shah [2024] EWCA Crim 50.

2 R v Bailey [2020] EWCA Crim 1719.

3 Public Prosecutor v Lee Soon Keng [2025] MLJU 2186.