WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT SOUTHAMPTON (HHJ ROWLAND) [44SC0798423, U20260109-113844] CASE NO 202600247/A2 [2026] EWCA Crim 366 |
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Thursday 26 February 2026
Before:
LORD JUSTICE MALES
MR JUSTICE JAY
MR JUSTICE GOOSE
REX
V
BAYLEIGH DARREN HOWDEN
__________
Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________
MR N SILLET appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
_________
JUDGMENT
MR JUSTICE GOOSE:
Introduction
On the 12 November 2025 in the Crown Court at Southampton, the appellant, Bayleigh Howden, pleaded guilty to an offence of Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm, contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It was the first day of his trial but the witnesses had been de-warned upon an indication of intended plea being provided. On the 9 January 2026 the appellant, who is aged 27 but was 25 at the time of the offence, was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment which sentence he appeals with leave of the Single Judge.
The offence
During the afternoon of 31 October 2023, the appellant was driving his car towards a garage which the complainant, an 89-year-old man, was collecting his car following repair work. The complainant turned into the road from the garage, in front of the appellant's vehicle. During the journey, a short distance from the garage, the complainant observed the appellant's erratic driving behind him which continued as he was followed home. The complainant drove onto his driveway and noticed that the appellant had pulled up outside his home address. The appellant began to shout at the complainant, who was still in the driver's seat but with the door open and his legs outside the car.
The appellant was annoyed that the complainant had pulled out in front of him when he drove out of the garage. He approached the complainant, who got out of his car. The complainant offered no violence but was pushed with sufficient force, which caused him to fall to the ground, which was observed by the complainant's wife. He suffered significant injuries and was taken to hospital.
The complainant required surgical treatment, having sustained a fracture to the neck of his left femur, or thigh bone. He suffered also from a more superficial skin tear to his left forearm. The fracture required surgery to apply internal fixation. He remained in hospital for over three weeks and required physiotherapy in his recovery.
In his Victim Personal Statement the complainant described himself prior to the offence as having been fit and active, playing golf three times a week and being part of a walking club. After four months he remained unable to drive and had become relatively inactive, relying upon others to assist him. The psychological consequence of his significant injury affected his mental health. He stated:
"The injury I suffered has had a lasting impact upon me. I feel weaker due to the reduction in my activity and my leg still troubles me. I feel very uncomfortable when I sit for a prolonged period. Whilst my health is gradually improving, I worry that I will never reach the level of health that I enjoyed before my assault. My recovery has been slow, and I lose hope that life will ever go back to normal."
By the time of sentence, the complainant had begun to drive his car again but only for short distances. His return to active hobbies, including golf and walking, was limited.
Upon his entering his guilty plea the appellant relied on a basis which was accepted by the prosecution. In that basis of plea, the appellant stated:
"I accept following the complainant to his home. I believed he had made a dangerous manoeuvre whilst driving and I felt compelled to tell him that. I did not follow with the intention of assaulting him. I wanted to tell him off. In hindsight I know that that was a foolish thing to do. I did not have any interaction with the complainant whilst he was still in the car. I shouted at him about his driving. I then turned and began to return to my car."
The appellant also described being approached by the complainant and feeling threatened, which caused him to push the complainant sufficiently to cause him to fall to the ground. He accepted that this was an assault and conducted by saying:
"I'm very sorry to have caused the complainant such harm. I very much regret how I acted."
The appellant was of previous good character and without any previous convictions, reprimands or warnings.
Sentencing
The judge identified this offence as falling within categories B2 or A3 of the Guideline, both of which required a starting point of two years' custody and a sentence range of one to three years. The judge took into account the report of a clinical psychologist, Dr Ann Beaton, which identified the appellant with a childhood and adult diagnosis of Autism and ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder). The judge increased the starting point to reflect the aggravating features of the offence but, after taking into account the significant mitigation, reduced the sentence from 32 months' imprisonment to 22 months' imprisonment to which he applied a 50 per cent discount for the late guilty plea. The custodial term resulted in a sentence of 18 months. There is no criticism of the approach to determination of the custodial term by the judge.
The judge then turned to the question of whether the sentence could be suspended and upon referring to the Imposition Guideline stated:
"It could be said that the first three factors there mitigate in favour of suspension but sadly, in my view, quite firmly outweighed by the seriousness of what you did, but I keep the sentence as short as I possibly can in light of your restrictions and also the conditions within custody, so the shortest sentence I can pass is one
of 18 months."
Grounds of Appeal
In helpful and comprehensive grounds of appeal on behalf of the appellant, Mr Sillet, for whose submissions we are grateful, relies upon five grounds of appeal: firstly, that the judge failed to give sufficient weight to the realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community; secondly, the judge failed to give sufficient weight to the fact that the appellant does not present a high risk of re-offending or harm; thirdly, the judge failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's strong personal mitigation; fourthly, the judge placed undue weight on the seriousness of the offence; and fifthly, no reference was made to the Guideline on Sentencing Offenders with Mental Disorders, Developmental Disorders or Neurological Impairments.
Whilst these grounds are properly raised on behalf of the appellant, they may be summarised to the effect that, in refusing to suspend the sentence of 18 months, the judge imposed an excessive sentence. As we have already observed, it is accepted on behalf of the appellant that the custodial term is not of itself excessive.
Discussion and conclusion
The focus of this appeal, therefore, is upon the decision as to whether the custodial term should have been suspended, recognising that the judge expressly referred to the Imposition Guideline when making the decision.
Mr Sillet relies heavily on the contents of the clinical psychologist's report of Dr. Ann Beaton, the fact that the appellant had no previous convictions, the circumstances of this offence and that clear remorse has been shown by the appellant.
In Dr. Beaton's report, dated 6 January 2026, it is stated as follows:
Results from my psychological assessment…confirm the diagnosis of Autism and an Attention Deficit Disorder based on Mr Howden's reporting, his developmental history, letters from CAMHS, and results on his assessment. … Autism and ADD are recognised neuro-development conditions that have a significant impact on an individual's ability to function in day to day life, including how they process language and other information, how they manage, understand and respond to and in social situations, and how sensory overload and unpredictable responses from others can impair decision making, social understanding and emotional regulation.
…
To people on the autistic spectrum, the social behaviour of others can be confusing with people on the spectrum using rule- based thinking and anticipating predictable responses from others when others responses are not predictable. This leads to using a rigid rule based approach to social situations, which cannot take account of unexpected social occurrences.
…
Autism and ADD have affected Mr Howden's life experiences as well as the choices that he made at the time of this offence. For example, his difficulty understanding social situations, making and maintaining friendships, and a tendency to respond impulsively when feeling overwhelmed, have led to schools not being able to support him sufficiently necessitating frequent changes of school.
…
In my opinion, in this offence, Mr Howden's decision-making and behaviour are greatly influenced by his neurodiversity. These diagnoses are short hand way of describing the cognitions and behaviour that we see play out in this scenario and Mr Howden's decision to follow the complainant home. All the factors which make problem solving difficult for someone with Autism and an Attention Deficit are at play. It is a novel and unexpected situation, which needs the ability for emotional regulation; it is a situation which involves understanding one's own and another's emotional response, and the need to understand that another person may see the situation differently."
We find this report and its conclusion pertinent to the issue at the heart of this appeal. Although the judge was correct to identify as an aggravating factor of seriousness, and which affected the decision upon whether to suspend the sentence of imprisonment or not, the fact that appellant had followed the complainant home and must have observed that he was an elderly and vulnerable man before assaulting him, the appellant's autism and ADD were significant.
When assessing the appellant's culpability, it was important for the judge to take into account the guidance within the Sentencing Offenders with Mental Disorders, Developmental Disorders or Neurological Impairments Guideline. Within that Guideline the following is stated:
The sentencer should make an initial assessment of culpability in accordance with any relevant offence-specific guideline, and should then consider whether culpability was reduced by reason of the impairment or disorder.
Culpability will only be reduced if there is sufficient connection between the offender’s impairment or disorder and the offending behaviour.
In some cases, the impairment or disorder may mean that culpability is significantly reduced. In other cases, the impairment or disorder may have no relevance to culpability. A careful analysis of all the circumstances of the case and all relevant materials is therefore required."
In determining the sentence, the Guideline provides at paragraph 22 as follows:
"Where an offender is on the cusp of custody or detention, the court may consider that the impairment or disorder may make a custodial sentence disproportionate to achieving the aims of sentencing and that the public are better protected and crime reduced by a rehabilitative approach.
Where custody or detention is unavoidable, consideration of the impact on the offender or the impairment or disorder may be relevant to the length of sentence and that the issue of whether any sentence may be suspended."
In our judgment and with great respect to the judge, we consider that the evidence within the clinical psychologist's report, associated with the circumstances of this offence and the appellant's previous good character should have led to the decision to suspend the sentence of 18 months. Whilst the judge appropriately considered that the seriousness of this offence drove the court to the conclusion that a suspended sentence could not be imposed, this failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigation available to the appellant and did not give sufficient weight to the terms of the Mental Disorder Guideline to which we have referred.
Accordingly, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal must be allowed given the exceptional circumstances we have identified. We have considered the terms of the pre-sentence report by Jennifer Shardlow, dated 18 January 2026, in which a proposal for a Community Order for 24 months was made together with two requirements: a 20-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement and an Unpaid Work Requirement of 200 hours. We shall adopt those requirements with some adjustment given that this will be a suspended sentence of imprisonment.
Therefore, we quash the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment and impose in its place a sentence of imprisonment for 18 months suspended for 24 months with the following requirements: a 20-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement to address emotional management and consequential thinking, monitor alcohol abuse and refer/liaise with mental health services for assistance around ongoing management of his neurodiversity as required; an Unpaid Work Requirement of 100 hours.
We will now explain the effect of this Order to the appellant.
Mr Howden, the Court has allowed your appeal and now imposes a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment suspended for two years with two requirements which you must perform. Firstly, 20 days' Rehabilitation Activity Requirement and secondly, Unpaid Work Requirement of 100 hours. You need to understand that during the next 24 months, if you commit a further offence then you may be brought back to court and could be sentenced for this matter with it being activated in whole or in part. Also, you must comply with the requirements and complete them properly as you are directed to. If you fail to do so, you could be brought back to court, further orders could be made and ultimately the order of suspended sentence can be activated. Do you understand that?
THE APPELLANT: Yes.
MR JUSTICE GOOSE: Thank you very much.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk