R v Hamilton Docta

The appellant is now 35. On 29 January 2025, he was sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court by HHJ Reeds KC ("the judge") to a total of 34 months' imprisonment for a variety of violent offences. His application for permission to appeal was refused by the single judge, who indicated that whatever the particular points might be on the application, the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The application was allowed on renewal by the Full Court on one ground, namely that the judge failed to have regard to the appellant's personal mitigation.

The facts of the offending are as follows. The applicant and Ms Green had been in a romantic relationship. She attended his flat as a result of an argument that he had with her by way of text message. Such was the nature of their relationship that Ms Green was in breach of her bail conditions by coming to the applicant's flat.

The applicant did not answer the door to his flat and Ms Green knocked further and then left. The applicant then left his flat shortly after that with a knife in his hand. He went into the communal hallway where Ms Green was standing. He placed the knife up against her throat, he held it there, then let go and returned to his flat. Ms Green picked up some eggs from the floor and threw them at his front door. She then ran down the stairs.

The applicant followed her and, as Ms Green was running down the stairs he kicked out to her feet which caused her to fall down. Once she was on the ground the applicant kicked her and stood over her. He then returned upstairs to his flat. Ms Green responded by shouting at the applicant: "All you can do is beat women and children. You should be ashamed of yourself". The applicant again left his flat and poured some milk over Ms Green as she was walking down the stairs.

Ms Green left the property, went home, showered and changed and went to a friend's home for a birthday party. Whilst at that party, messages were exchanged between Ms Green and the applicant. The applicant arrived at the premises and initially engaged in an argument with one of Ms Green's friends. Outside, Ms Green voluntarily entered the applicant's car and the two went back to the applicant's property where another argument ensued. Ms Green went through the applicant's mobile telephone and found messages to and from another female. There was a further argument between them. Ms Green grabbed hold of the applicant's mobile telephone and slapped him in the face.

The applicant stood up and began to punch Ms Green to her head and told her to leave. She did not recall how, but she ended up on the floor between the door and the wall. The applicant was kicking and punching her while she was on the ground. He then threw her out of the property.

A neighbour, Ms Hunter, heard this commotion and attended the scene. Ms Green went to Ms Hunter's flat. The two were standing in the doorway with Ms Hunter in front of Ms Green closest to the applicant's flat. He returned with a knife, which he was holding at head height. He came towards the two women with the knife. Ms Hunter stated: "I believed he was going to stab me. I crouched down. I placed my hands over my head to protect myself." The applicant subsequently returned to his property.

Officers attended the scene shortly after about 6.00 am on 12 October and knocked on his door. The applicant refused to open the door. The police gained entry by forcing the door. The applicant was arrested and cautioned and a knife was recovered close to where he was within his flat. He resisted being placed in the police van. He kicked out at the doors and officers requested assistance in order to place him into the van. Whilst being conveyed to custody he spat at PC Whitton, connecting with his trousers and boots. He was then further arrested and cautioned and in response to that caution he stated that he would assault the officers again if they opened the cell door or if he was to see them whilst off-duty. In interview he refused to comment and remained silent.

Ms Green attended Accident & Emergency for her injuries. She had suffered a superficial cut to her left leg, a swollen right eye, swelling to the left side of the jaw, bruising to both shoulders and tears to her gum and lower left side of her lip.

The applicant has a large number of previous convictions: 22 convictions for 43 offences between 2005 and 2024. These include possession of an offensive weapon in 2006 and having a bladed article in 2007, and subsequent convictions for a number of violent offences such as robbery, violent disorder, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and two offences of assault against emergency workers.

There was no pre-sentence report because the appellant refused to attend the video-link interview with the probation officer. That is a matter to which we shall return. There was a lengthy report from a psychiatrist (Dr Prosser) instructed by the appellant's solicitor.

That report concluded that the appellant had a confirmed psychiatric diagnosis of mixed anxiety and depression. He was not suffering from a mental disorder and the psychiatrist had no concerns about cognition or intellectual impairment. The appellant met the criteria for a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder based on his disruptive childhood in the Central African Republic where he witnessed numerous acts of violence and the subsequent domestic violence he witnessed at home in the UK. It is said that this is likely to have had an impact on his personality development and his tendency to anti-social behaviour.

When sentencing the appellant, the judge noted the appellant's terrible record for violent offending, recording that he had served significant sentences for wounding with intent, violent disorder and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, as well as Youth Court convictions for possessing an offensive weapon and robbery. He also noted that the appellant's last conviction was in September 2024, for assaulting an emergency worker and that in consequence the appellant was in breach of the conditional discharge imposed for that offence as a result of these offences.

For the offences of threatening with a knife, of which of course there were two, the judge had regard to the guideline for threatening with a knife in a public place. He arrived at a starting point of 3 years and 6 months for those offences before reducing that to 31 months in consequence of the appellant's plea of guilty. For the count of assault on Ms Green, the judge imposed a term of 18 months which he made concurrent with the sentences for threatening with a knife. As to the assault on the emergency worker, he imposed a term of 3 months because "the victim is different".

In arriving at the sentences the judge considered but made no apparent reduction for personal mitigation. The relevant exchange was as follows:

As we have said, the single judge indicated that notwithstanding the points taken in the advice on appeal, the sentence that was passed was not and could not be said to be manifestly excessive.

The Full Court granted permission to appeal against the sentence. Fraser LJ, giving the judgment of the Court, noted that whilst the judge had said the appellant had no personal mitigation, the Full Court considered that the content of the psychiatric report indicated that there was considerable personal mitigation. The Full Court thought that the report meant that the judge may have erred in sentencing the applicant without considering those matters. The appeal was therefore expedited to today.

We note that the Full Court made no mention of the other ground of appeal, namely the fact that Ms Green was in breach of her bail conditions by attending at the appellant's flat, which was said to be somehow relevant to the sentencing exercise. However, this morning that ground was realistically not pursued by Mr Edusei and we consider that that concession was a hallmark of his submissions generally, which were clear and realistic. We therefore turn to the remaining ground of appeal.

The primary question for us is whether the term of 34 months' custody imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. For the reasons that we shall give, we do not consider that it was. This incident was prolonged over many hours. Two different women were threatened with a knife, one of them a stranger. The other was physically assaulted and an emergency worker was also assaulted. All of this was perpetrated by the appellant, who has an appalling record for violent offending and who has plainly not learnt from any of the previous custodial terms imposed upon him. Indeed, we regard it as something of a surprise that he has not previously been assessed as dangerous.

We respectfully agree with the Full Court that the contents of Dr Prosser's report do provide particulars of mitigation which should have been considered more carefully by the sentencing judge. But we are doubtful, in the overall circumstances of this case, whether any significant discount would have been appropriate in relation to those matters. That is in part because of the appellant's criminal record. There comes a time when repeated offending and repeated custodial sentences wear away the significance and impact of the sort of personal mitigation identified by Dr Prosser.

Furthermore, in that regard, we are bound to note that the appellant was quite happy to attend a meeting with Dr Prosser (the psychiatrist appointed by his own solicitors) but refused to attend the pre-arranged meeting with the Probation Service. That explains why there was no pre-sentence report. That has at least the appearance of an intention on the part of the appellant to manipulate the system. It means too that the report of Dr Prosser carries less weight than it would have done had it been possible to read it alongside a report prepared by the Probation Service for the assistance of the court.

In addition, there were, in our view, aggravating factors which the judge did not take into account in the sentences that he fixed and which would have cancelled out any personal mitigation. They include:

In those circumstances, therefore, whilst there were some mitigating factors that should have been taken into account, we also consider that there were aggravating factors that were not taken into account and which would have balanced out those mitigating factors.

So we come back to the central question: was the 34 months imposed by the judge manifestly excessive for these offences, given the appellant's antecedents? For the same reasons given by the single judge, and for the reasons that we have explained in more detail above, we do not think that it was.

For those reasons, despite Mr Edusei's helpful submissions, this appeal against sentence is dismissed.