R v Mark Fuller

On 8 May 2025, having pleaded guilty before Crawley Magistrates' Court, the appellant was committed for sentence pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020 in respect of offences 1 and 2, and pursuant to section 20 of the same Act in respect of offence 3. Offence 1 was an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, offence 2 was a second such assault and the third offence was criminal damage, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

On 6 August 2025 in the Crown Court at Lewes before His Honour Judge Mooney, the appellant was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment on offence 1, 10 months' imprisonment to run consecutively on offence 2 and one month's imprisonment on offence 3 to run concurrently, making a total sentence of 20 months. He appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.

On the evening of 6 May 2025 the appellant returned to the caravan site where both he and his parents lived. He had been gone for two days having had an argument with them. When he returned he was very intoxicated through alcohol and various drugs. He was in a very agitated and frenzied state. He began hitting various cars around the site and he smashed a windscreen. The appellant's mother approached him and tried to calm him down. She said that he was hallucinating and that he believed there was somebody in front of him laughing at him. While she was trying to calm him down he tried to hit his mother and shouted in her face.

After the appellant had been shouting and hitting various cars for a while, he noticed that a neighbour, Mr Max Miller, had seen him. The appellant approached Mr Miller, who attempted to calm the situation down and said to him: "Are you okay?" The appellant then ran towards Mr Miller and the appellant's mother shouted for Mr Miller to run away. He tried to do so but the appellant caught up with him.

The appellant's mother tried to get in-between the two of them and he then punched her in the face. Mr Miller said that the appellant swung out at his mother, knocking her to the floor. Mrs Fuller said that her son punched her as hard as he could. She fell unconscious. At some point she found herself on the floor covered in debris. She described herself as being shocked and very shaky. She found it difficult to get her balance. She suffered severe bruising to the left side of her check, face and jaw. Her face was left very swollen and there was also a cut to her lip. She was left in much pain.

Mr Miller tried to prevent the appellant from hitting him but the appellant punched him to his face and also to his right ribs. At this point the appellant's brother came to the scene and tried to restrain the appellant. The appellant escaped his grip, went back to Mr Miller and punched him multiple times to his chest, ribs and temple. Mr Miller got away for a few seconds before the appellant came at him again and headbutted him to the nose. Mr Miller said he heard his nose 'pop'. Throughout the incident the appellant was shouting that he was going to kill him. Eventually Mr Miller and the appellant's brother were able to restrain the appellant until the police arrived.

Mr Miller went to hospital, having suffered a broken nose and multiple cuts to his face which required steri-strips and gluing. The whole incident lasted about 30 minutes.

The appellant was arrested and arrived at the police station with blood on his face and on his hands.

The appellant was born in May 2000 and was nearly 25 on the date of the offences. He had one previous conviction for possession of cocaine, criminal damage and two counts of assault of an emergency worker (namely police officers) for which he was given a community order in May 2024 lasting one year. The appellant committed the index offences whilst subject to that order.

In a pre-sentence report prepared in June 2025 the appellant referred to an incident in 2019 when he said that he had been attacked whilst trying to protect his mother from an unprovoked assault involving a knife. He was cut on the head and arms. He feels that he has never been able to move on from this incident. The report recorded that the appellant had been violent to his parents and ex-partner. The appellant began using cocaine and alcohol around 2020. He was aware that alcohol and cocaine makes him paranoid and aggressive or violent. The author assessed the appellant as posing a medium risk of reconviction, a medium risk of serious offending and a high risk of violence towards partners and family members. There was a medium risk of serious harm involving unprovoked violence against the public or neighbours if he feels they are interfering with his activities. The risk relates to psychological as well as physical harm. The report expressed no concerns regarding the appellant's behaviour on his community order prior to the index offences.

In June 2025 a Liaison and Diversion Court Report was prepared by a nurse in the NHS. The report suggested that there were symptoms of PTSD but no diagnosis to that effect has been made. The report stated that the appellant did not have a mental health condition requiring referral to a secondary mental health team. He was said to show great remorse and contrition. Having moved in with his grandmother, the appellant said he was determined to engage with services dealing with alcohol and drugs abuse. The report said that in addition the appellant should have psychological therapy via Health in Mind.

We have also read the character references from the appellant's grandmother and father.

In passing sentence, the judge said that both offences fell within Category B2 of the guideline which had a starting point of 32 weeks within a range from a high community order to 18 months. The aggravating features were the prolonged nature of the offending, the fact that the appellant was in the grip of alcohol and drugs, the previous convictions for violence and the breach of the community order.

The judge said that in his opinion the mental health issues provided little mitigation. The reason why the appellant is violent is not because of mental health issues as such, but because he chooses to use alcohol and drugs to self-medicate knowing of the risk that he would thereby become violent. The judge said that he would pass consecutive sentences because there were two victims and because of the criminality in relation to each. He said that after a trial the sentence would have been 15 months on each of offences 1 and 2, reduced to 10 months because of the guilty plea and running consecutively so as to make a total of 20 months. The sentence for the criminal damage (offence 3) was one month to run concurrently. The judge said that the offences were so serious that they could not be suspended.

We are grateful to Miss Harriett Bennett for her written and oral submissions. In summary she has submitted that:

The single judge considered that the ground of appeal relating to suspension was arguable. Although he was unimpressed by the criticisms of the overall length of the custodial term, he did not limit the grant of leave to the issue of suspension.

We have reviewed all aspects of the sentence carefully in the light of the oral submissions and also written submissions which were not pursued at the hearing.

In our judgment the judge did not err in placing the harm caused by the assault on Mrs Fuller in Category 2 rather than Category 3. It is plain from our description of the strong punch and the effects it had that this was not simply "some level of physical or psychological harm with limited impact on the victim".

With regard to the mental health issues, rightly the appellant does not suggest that there is a disorder linked to the commission of the offences. That would have reduced culpability from Category B to C but no such argument forms part of this appeal. The judge gave adequate reasons on this aspect which accord with paragraph 15 of the Guideline on Sentencing Offenders with Mental Disorders. The appellant well knew from experience that if he consumed alcohol and drugs his condition would deteriorate with a clear risk of violence. The guideline also indicates that a mental issue may be a mitigating factor where it is not linked to the commission of the offences. This enables the court to take into account the impact of custody on the offender; that is whether it will weigh more heavily upon him or her because of the mental disorder so as to justify a reduction in length of sentence. But no such evidence was presented in this case.

In our judgment the content of the character references does not indicate that the judge failed to make sufficient allowance for mitigation.

We turn to consider ground 3. There were a number of aggravating features which apply to both offences 1 and 2, namely previous offences of violence, breach of the community order and the offences were committed under the influence of alcohol and drugs. A sentence of 15 months before credit was well justified for the attack on Mr Miller. Although it is said that Mrs Fuller sustained less physical harm than Mr Miller, counsel's advice rightly accepts that the commission of the offence under offence 1 in a domestic context was a further aggravating factor in that case. There is also evidence of previous violence against the appellant's parents. Accordingly, we do not consider that the sentence of 15 months for offence 1 before allowing credit for plea, was in itself manifestly excessive.

The real issue in this part of the appeal, as counsel has recognised in her oral submissions this morning, is the application of the totality principle. Should the sentences have been consecutive and in any event did the overall sentence accord with totality?

The judge did not refer to totality, which he plainly should have done, explaining with adequate reasons how he had applied the guidelines to the circumstances of this case. It should not be necessary for that exercise to have to be carried out on appeal. But of course, we should not make a reduction for totality just because the judge did not address the point. The real question for us is whether standing back the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

The sentences for the two assaults could have been structured either as concurrent sentences or as two consecutive sentences, because although one incident there were two victims and there were different considerations. In any event, if concurrent sentences were to be passed on the basis that this was a single incident, then it was a sustained or persistent incident lasting 30 minutes, elevating the culpability to A. The top of the range for Category 2A is 30 months, which would not have been manifestly excessive in this particular case. Even if the overall sentence might be considered tough, we do not think it could be described as manifestly excessive.

We therefore turn to the question of suspension. Here the judge did have the relevant guideline in mind. Although he only referred explicitly to one of the factors involved. He ought to have set out his reasoning in relation to each of the factors which were in play in this case. If that practice is followed, appeals would be rendered unnecessary in at least some cases.

In R v Price [2023] EWCA Crim 1099, this court stated at paragraph 12 that the guideline is not to be applied by simply totting up factors on one side of the balance or the other. The competing factors involve incommensurables and the weight they will attract will vary from case to case. This is not an arithmetical exercise. The question of which factor or factors should prevail in any particular case is a matter of judgment.

In our judgment this was not a case in which the appellant could show strong personal mitigation, nor was it a case in which immediate custody would result in significant harmful impact on others, even taking into account the character references. As regards other factors pointing against suspension, there was not a "history" of poor compliance with court orders. There was one community order imposed on 20 May 2024 for a period of one year. The index offences took place two weeks before the end of that order. The pre-sentence report stated that up until then the appellant's response to supervision had been satisfactory and it went on to express the opinion that the appellant was suitable for a community order if the court should judge that to be appropriate.

On the other hand, the appellant presents a significant risk of serious harm to the public and certain individuals. In addition, the judge took the view, as he was entitled to do, that appropriate punishment required immediate custody. However, where that last factor applies, it is not a trump card in every case which predetermines the outcome of the exercise. It has to be weighed in the balance against factors pointing in favour of suspension: see R v Anjorin [2022] EWCA Crim 1932 at paragraph 19.

Here the only factor which might weigh in favour of suspension is the matter of rehabilitation. However, whilst there is no doubt about the need for treatment and work on the appellant's behaviour, there is little to indicate that the prospect of rehabilitation at this stage is realistic given what has happened to date. But in any event, that prospect is not in our judgment sufficient to outweigh the factors in favour of immediate custody.

For those reasons, notwithstanding the persuasive force with which counsel has made submissions on behalf of the appellant, we uphold the judge's decision and dismiss the appeal.