R v Ashley Sutcliffe

On 22 May 2026, after entering guilty pleas, the appellant was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Judge also imposed a consecutive 6-month sentence for racially aggravated common assault. The appellant now appeals against those sentences with the leave of the single judge on the basis that either individually, or certainly when taken together, they are manifestly excessive.

The appellant was represented by Mr Luxford, and we are grateful to him for his submissions.

On 25 October 2024 the appellant attacked the complainant, Daryl Tate, while Mr Tate was sleeping in his bed. At that time, Mr Tate was sharing a flat with Natalie Perrins, a friend of the appellant. The attack was apparently motivated by disagreements between Mr Tate and Perrins as to whether Mr Tate should remain in the accommodation. The appellant repeatedly struck Mr Tate with a dog chain, hitting him to his head and body while Perrins threw Mr Tate’s possessions out of the flat. At one point the appellant asked Perrins to get a knife. She returned with a kitchen knife, which the appellant pointed at Mr Tate.

Mr Tate managed to escape from the flat and eventually came into contact with a member of the public who called the police. The police had also received a 999 call from the appellant falsely claiming that Mr Tate had attacked him and that Mr Tate had raped Perrins. Those false allegations led to Mr Tate’s arrest and interview, although Perrins soon confirmed that no rape had taken place and Mr Tate was unconditionally released.

Entirely separate from that incident, at around 10.30 pm on 29 January 2025 the appellant and another friend, Helen Brumby, boarded a bus. Both were under the influence of drink. The appellant was accompanied by his dog. On the bus they spotted Mr Syed Shoriquzzaman sitting at the back. They began to abuse him, telling him that he should not be in the country and that they did not like “Pakis”. The appellant also said he did not like black people. Brumby then placed Mr Shoriquzzaman in a headlock and punched him several times, leaving him with a bleeding lip and a swollen eye, while the appellant stood there watching. As Brumby left the appellant punched Mr Shoriquzzaman and then departed the scene.

At the time of sentence the appellant was 36 years old and had 28 previous convictions for 57 offences over the period from January 2006 to October 2025. These included five offences against the person and two previous convictions for offending which was racially aggravated. The prosecution submitted that, for guideline purposes, the section 47 offence was category 2A, namely an offence of high culpability but with intermediate harm. That categorisation indicated a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment and a range of 36 weeks to 2½ years. While the Judge does not specifically refer to the issue of categorisation, it is clear from the sentencing remarks that he took the guideline 18 months starting point and increased it to the top of the range to reflect various aggravated features of the offending. The figure of 2 years 6 months was reduced by 10 per cent to reflect a guilty plea at trial.

So far as the racially aggravated assault was concerned, the Crown had submitted that was an offence of high culpability and category 2 harm, which indicated a starting point of a medium-level community order and a range of a high-level community order to 18 months’ imprisonment, before the uplift for the racially aggravated element was addressed. Once again the Judge did not refer to the relevant sentencing guideline when sentencing for that offence but he did refer to aggravating features in the form of previous convictions, specifically those which had a racially aggravated element, and to the fact that the offence was committed while the appellant was on bail. The Judge stated that if he had been sentencing for an offence without a racially aggravated element, he would have imposed a non-custodial sentence but after taking all the aggravating features into account, he imposed a sentence of 6 months to be served consecutively (that figure reflecting 25 per cent credit for plea).

Mr Luxford, who appears for the appellant, raises three arguments. The first is that the Judge adopted too high a starting point for the section 47 offence. It was argued in the written advice and grounds that the Judge should not have treated the false reports made against Mr Tate as an aggravating factor but, sensibly, that submission has not been pursued on appeal.

So far as the racially aggravated assault is concerned, Mr Luxford argues that the increase to reflect the racially aggravated nature of the offence was simply too high and failed to allow for the appellant’s contrition and his self-awareness, as was evident from the pre-sentence report. Finally, he argues that the Judge failed to step back and pay sufficient regard to considerations of totality when looking at the sentences as a whole.

As we have stated, we accept that the Judge was entitled to take the false reports made by the appellant into account. Those were made very shortly after the offence and with view to covering up the commission of the offence and we consider that Mr Luxford was right not to press that point on this appeal.

Mr Luxford did not challenge the prosecution’s categorisation of this offence for guideline purposes. It is right to record there were a number of culpability A factors present. Mr Tate was very vulnerable (asleep in his bed), a weapon was used and the attack was clearly premeditated, forming a part of a plan to evict Mr Tate from the house. There were also additional aggravating factors in the appellant’s previous convictions and as we have mentioned false allegations made against Mr Tate.

Taking all of those matters into account and after allowing for the mitigating factors mentioned, which were not particularly compelling, we are satisfied that the Judge was entitled to arrive at the sentence he did, even though we accept that the sentence was perhaps towards the upper end of those reasonably open to the Judge. We would therefore reject the appeal in relation to the section 47 offence.

There was no challenge to the classification of that offence as high culpability and category 2 harm. It is accepted that it was necessary to apply an uplift to reflect the racially aggravated element before considering aggravating and mitigating factors more generally. In this case we are satisfied that racial aggravation was the predominant motive for the assault. Mr Shoriquzzaman was singled out for that reason. That is a high-level culpability factor and would justify the court imposing a custodial sentence if not otherwise appropriate or increasing the length of such a sentence. The appellant’s previous convictions, in particular those for racially aggravated offending ,and the fact that the offence was committed on police bail also amounted to aggravating factors. We are not persuaded that the appellant’s response to the offence merits mitigation beyond the 25 per cent credit for guilty plea. Once again, we are not persuaded that that sentence was manifestly excessive.

We turn to the question of totality. It is accepted that the Judge was right to conclude that the sentences had to be consecutive, as the sentences were imposed for distinct offences with different victims committed on different occasions. While the Judge did not expressly refer to totality, we have stood back and looked at the total sentence, in particular in the light of features of the section 47 offence to which we have referred and the predominantly racially aggravated motive of the other assault. We are sure the Judge did the same. Having done so, we are not persuaded that the sentence which the Judge imposed even considered in totality can be said to be manifestly excessive.

For those reasons we dismiss the appeal.