R v Hamilton Docta

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.

On 21 November 2024, in the Crown Court at Sheffield, the applicant pleaded guilty to four different offences all of which arose on the same occasion, although they occurred from one evening into the early hours of the next morning. They were two counts of making threats with an offensive weapon in a public place, contrary to section 52(1) and (6) of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and one count of an assault on an emergency worker, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018.

On 29 January 2025, the applicant was sentenced to 31 months' imprisonment on each of the counts concerning making threats with an offensive weapon and 18 months' imprisonment for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Those three terms of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently with each other. He was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for assault upon an emergency worker, which was ordered to run consecutively. His total sentence was therefore one of 34 months' imprisonment. Restraining orders were also made in respect of the two victims of his offending, namely Chloe Green and Michelle Hunter, for a period of two years.

The facts of the offending are as follows. The applicant and Miss Green had been in a romantic relationship previously. On the evening in question, she attended his flat as a result of an argument that the two of them had with one another by text message.

The applicant did not answer the door to his flat initially, and Miss Green knocked further. She then left and he left his flat shortly after that, but with a knife in his hand, and followed her. He went into the communal hallway, and placed the knife up against her throat. He let go and returned to the property of his own accord. Miss Green picked up some eggs from the floor and threw them at his front door. She then ran from the property down the stairs. The applicant followed and, as Miss Green was running down the stairs, he kicked out at her feet, which caused her to fall down. Once she was on the ground, the applicant kicked her and stood over her. He then left the scene and returned upstairs to his flat. Miss Green responded by shouting at the applicant: "All you can do is beat women and children. You should be ashamed of yourself". The applicant once again left his property and poured some milk over Miss Green as she was walking down the stairs.

Miss Green left the property, went home, showered and changed and went to a friend's home for a birthday party. Whilst at that party text messages were exchanged with both Miss Green and her friend to the applicant. The applicant arrived at the premises to visit friends, and initially engaged in an argument with one of Miss Green's friends. Miss Green then voluntarily entered the applicant's car and the two went back to the applicant's property, where an argument ensued and Miss Green went through the applicant's mobile telephone and found messages from another female. This caused yet a further argument between the two, and Miss Green grabbed hold of the applicant's mobile telephone and she slapped him in the face. The applicant stood up and began to punch Miss Green to her head and told her to leave. She asked him to give her a minute. She did not recall how it occurred, but she ended up on the floor between the door and the wall. The applicant was kicking and punching her whilst she was on the ground, and he then threw her out of the flat.

A neighbour, Michelle Hunter, heard this commotion and attended the scene. Miss Hunter told Miss Green that she should not be present at the flat. The applicant stated: "I'm glad that you've told her that". Miss Green then went to Miss Hunter's flat. The two were stood in the doorway. Miss Hunter was in front of Miss Green, closest to the applicant's flat. He returned with a knife, which he was holding at head height. He approached the two women with the knife, and Miss 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 then returned to his property.

Officers attended the scene shortly after, at about six o'clock on the morning of 12 October, and knocked on his door. He 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 the 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 towards 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 were to see them whilst they were off duty. In interview he refused to comment and remained silent.

Miss Green attended the Accident and Emergency department 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 there were tears to her gum and lower left side of her lip.

The applicant has a large number of previous convictions, namely 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. There are also 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.

The court did not have a pre-sentence report but had the benefit of a psychiatric report by Dr Prosser, which is extremely comprehensive. It explained that the applicant had had a troubled, difficult and violent childhood, firstly in the Central African Republic where he lived until he was 8 years old and then in the UK. Domestic violence was a feature of his home life and he left home at 15, having been expelled from a large number of schools and having been taken out of school entirely for one year. After leaving home he fell into criminality. The report refers to a very wide range of mental health issues from which the applicant suffers.

In sentencing, the judge expressly stated, correctly, that the applicant had a dreadful record. He said that it was hard to see any mitigation in his case. The judge also referred to the medical reports and said the following:

The judge calculated the sentence for each count by taking the starting point, increasing it for aggravating factors, made no reduction for personal mitigation, and applied the correct discount for the pleas of guilty.

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

The contents of the psychiatric report make clear that the applicant has considerable personal mitigation. The sentencing exercise that was undertaken in terms of the analysis of starting point, increased for aggravating factors and percentage reduction for guilty pleas, means that he indeed sentenced the applicant without making any reduction at all for his personal mitigation. In our judgment, that is wrong in principle; mitigation must be taken in to account, and this is a requirement of the sentencing process. However, in this particular case, in our judgment, it is also wrong on the facts. The prevalence of violence in the life of the applicant from a young age; the domestic abuse he witnessed against his mother at home as a child, which included the refusal of any medical treatment to her when she gave birth to his baby sister, such that the little girl was born dead; but in particular the wide range of psychiatric conditions which are referred to in the report of Dr Prosser may well have had some relevant impact upon the applicant.

The test for this court at this stage is whether it is reasonably arguable that a sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. In our judgment, it was wrong in principle to have sentenced the applicant without considering any personal mitigation. The psychiatric report identifies a breadth of personal mitigation available to the applicant. By approaching the matters as he did, the sentencing judge entirely discounted these mental health conditions.

His grounds are therefore, in our judgment, reasonably arguable.

The applicant is not present today or represented before us upon this renewed application for leave, and he is entitled to have submissions made on his behalf at his appeal. We therefore allow the renewed application and grant leave to appeal. Due to the detailed nature of the psychiatric report it is not necessary to obtain a pre-appeal report and we do not order one. We grant a representation order for junior counsel only for the hearing of the appeal. Due to the relatively short sentence that was imposed upon the appellant (as he now is), unless his appeal is heard in short order it would become otiose. We therefore also order that the hearing of the appeal be expedited, and we order that the transcript of these remarks granting him leave to appeal be provided to him.

The time estimate for the hearing of the appeal is 45 minutes.