R v Lee Jennings

On 12 December 2025, in the Crown Court at Leeds, Lee Jennings ("the offender"), having previously pleaded guilty on indictment, was made the subject of a suspended sentence order of 2 years' imprisonment suspended for an operational period of 2 years, together with a curfew requirement, a rehabilitation activity requirement and a programme requirement, comprised of the following periods of concurrent imprisonment:

The Solicitor General applies for leave to refer the sentences as being unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and we grant leave.

The offender and Donna Phillips were in a relationship together for 27 years and had been married for the last 11 years. There are three children in the family, Nathan, Georgia and Benjamin.

Over the course of the last 9 years, between 2016 - 2025, the offender repeatedly subjected his wife to derogatory and undermining verbal abuse, and used or threatened her with physical violence, including threatening to kill himself and his wife if she should leave him (count 4). In addition, there were specific incidents in which the offender assaulted his daughter (count 1), assaulted his wife (count 2) and intentionally strangled his eldest son (count 3).

In August 2019, the family holidayed in Egypt. The offender became jealous at his wife talking to some local men, as a result of which he repeatedly hit his wife, causing her, together with her eldest son, to hide on a different floor of the hotel and then sit outside the hotel with an armed guard.

In August 2020, the family holidayed in Cornwall. On one occasion, at breakfast in a communal dining room, the offender's wife accidentally spilt hot tea over herself and the offender. The offender shouted at his wife and called her a "fucking idiot". During the same holiday in Cornwall, there was an occasion on which the offender made his wife, together with Benjamin and Georgia, leave their caravan. He did not let them back into the caravan for the remainder of the day. On the same holiday the offender's wife had consumed some alcoholic drinks, as a result of which, the offender insisted that she was not allowed to go out and made Benjamin take her back into their caravan.

In 2020 and 2021, the offender's wife took time off to care for the offender's grandfather. After the offender's grandfather had died, the offender discouraged his wife from returning to work.

In March 2024, the offender, his wife and younger son travelled to Romania as part of a football trip being undertaken by Benjamin's football team. During the trip they spent an evening socialising with other families. The offender's wife and Benjamin left the gathering and went to one of the two bedrooms occupied by the family. The offender arrived shortly afterwards. He was angry, and shouted and screamed at his wife. He grabbed her by the hair, throat and neck. Benjamin was present throughout, and repeatedly asked the offender to stop what he was doing to his mother.

During the same holiday, the family were at a meal with the other families who were on the trip. The offender's wife went outside to have a cigarette. There were some men in the smoking area. The offender shouted at his wife, and then refused to get into the taxi which was to have taken the family back to where they were staying.

On 24 December 2024, Georgia, then aged 24, arrived at the family home to find her mother upset, as a result of which she told her mother that she should leave the offender. The offender reacted by grabbing his daughter by the throat. He threw her to the floor and stamped on her. Georgia's coat was torn during the incident and she sustained reddening to the area of her neck. Benjamin, then aged 17, was present throughout. Later on when Nathan, who had not been present during the assault, challenged the offender about his behaviour, the offender said he should have "give her it more".

On 5 May 2025, Leeds United FC held a parade in the centre of Leeds to celebrate the club's promotion to the Premier League. The offender attended the parade in the company of his wife, Nathan, then aged 27, and Benjamin who was there with his girlfriend. They all consumed alcohol, and at about 6.00 pm, the group went to Leeds railway station to catch the train home. They missed the train they had intended to catch, and the offender blamed his wife. He said: "This is your fucking fault". He then pushed, shoved and grabbed her. A male member of the public told the offender to leave his wife alone. She ushered the passerby away and into a lift. Shortly afterwards, the offender's wife, Nathan and the passerby were walking down a flight of stairs. The offender came up the stairs to meet them. Nathan blocked his way, in response to which the offender grabbed Nathan by the throat. He squeezed his throat which restricted Nathan's ability to breathe and caused him pain. Nathan said: "Dad, what are you doing? I'm your son", to which the offender replied: "Fuck off you cunt". The offender let go of Nathan's neck, by which time he had sustained reddening to his neck. The offender then pushed his wife causing her to stagger forwards down the stairs.

The offender was arrested at Leeds train station after the assaults which had been captured on CCTV, and the officer who arrested the offender noted that the offender's speech was slurred, his eyes were glazed and he smelt of alcohol.

The offender was interviewed and answered all of the questions put to him by saying "no comment". He also provided a written statement in which he denied controlling or coercive behaviour towards his wife.

The offender's wife provided a victim personal statement in which she described the long-term effect of the offender's actions on herself and her children. She disclosed that she had kept the offender's abusive behaviour secret within her family for many years and that this had undermined her confidence and how to deal with the outside world. She concluded by observing that:

The offender's daughter provided a victim personal statement in which she also mentioned having kept the offender's abusive behaviour secret within the family. She disclosed that she had flashbacks to the incident in which the offender assaulted her, which has significantly affected her relationships with others. She concluded by observing that:

Nathan, also provided a victim personal statement, in which he described that since the offender strangled him, he has suffered with fear, anxiety and restlessness. It has affected his sleep, his confidence and his ability to relax. Moreover, he remains fearful of the offender and he frequently feels overwhelmed by his emotions.

The offender first appeared at the Magistrates' Court on 14 May 2025, when he indicated not guilty pleas. He was remanded in custody and the case was sent to the Crown Court. The offender first appeared at the Crown Court on 11 June 2025, when he pleaded guilty to count 2, and the remaining counts, to which he pleaded not guilty, were adjourned for trial. On 10 November 2025, the case was listed for trial, at which point the offender asked to be rearraigned and entered guilty pleas to the remaining counts on the indictment. Sentence was then adjourned for the preparation of a pre-sentence report.

The offender is 54 years of age, and has two sets of previous convictions from 2000, including affray, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and disorderly behaviour. He was also cautioned for common assault in 2006.

He had written letters to his wife and children in which he expressed his remorse for his offending; a matter which he repeated in a letter which he addressed to the Recorder who sentenced him. There were also letters from two members of his wider family who spoke of a more positive side of the offender's character, and which disclosed that the offender's mother had died when he was a child as a result of which his grandfather became an influential care giver. Moreover, that despite this early set back in his childhood, the offender had worked hard to achieve significant success in his working life, and also provided significant care for members of his wider family.

The pre-sentence report dated 10 December 2025, noted that the offender appeared to suggest that in relation to count 1, he had been obliged to restrain his daughter, and that in general his remorse appeared to be related to feelings of general failure to prioritise his family, rather than specific feelings about how he treated his victims and the impact which it will have upon each of them. The author of the report assessed the offender as posing a high risk of serious harm to the victims, and to future intimate partners.

A more recent pre-appeal report dated 12 February 2026 disclosed that the offender's probation practitioner considered that whilst the offender had complied with the various requirements of the suspended sentence order:

Prior to the sentencing hearing, the parties provided the court with written sentencing notes. The prosecution made submissions in relation to the categorisation of the offences under the relevant sentencing guidelines.

In relation to the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour, it was submitted that this was a category A1 offence; culpability A due to the conduct persisting over a prolonged period and the use of multiple methods of controlling or coercive behaviour; whilst harm 1 due to the conduct involving fear of violence on many occasions and the very serious alarm or distress which has had a substantial adverse effect on the victim. Therefore, the appropriate starting point was 2½ years' custody with a category range of between 1 - 4 years. It was submitted that the offence was aggravated by the impact which the offence had upon the children of the family who were present during episodes of the offender's abusive conduct towards his wife.

In relation to the offences of assault by beating, it was submitted that count 1 was a category A1 offence with an appropriate starting point of a high-level community order, with a category range of up to 26 weeks' custody, whilst count 2 was a category A2 offence with an appropriate starting point of a low-level community order, with a category range of up to 16 weeks' custody. It was submitted that count 1 was aggravated by the presence of the offender's youngest son and the abuse of power involved in the assault on his daughter. Moreover, it was submitted that count 2 was aggravated by the presence of some of the offender's children, its domestic abuse context and the fact that the offender was under the influence of alcohol at the material time. Finally, in relation to the offence of intentional strangulation, it was submitted that this was a category B1 offence; culpability B because it fell between the factors described in high and lesser culpability; whilst harm 1 due to the severe psychological harm which the victim suffered. Therefore, the appropriate starting point was 2½ years' custody, with a category range of between 1½ - 3½ years. It was submitted that this offence was aggravated by the presence of the offender's younger son, the abuse of power involved in the offence and the fact that the offender was under the influence of alcohol at the material time.

The Defence Sentencing Note concurred with the prosecution's categorisation of the offences under the sentencing guidelines, and that the offences were aggravated for the reasons submitted by the prosecution. However, it was submitted that the court should take into account the mitigation which was available to the offender, including the fact that he was a successful businessman who had worked hard throughout his life. It was pointed out that the offender had had a difficult childhood and that the recent death of his grandfather had led him to suffer from symptoms of depression and anxiety.

It was submitted that the court should have regard to the principle of totality and to the Sentencing Council's Overarching Guideline on the Imposition of Custodial and Community Sentences, which in this case could lead to the imposition of a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

In the course of his sentencing remarks the Recorder noted that the maximum sentence for offences of assault by beating is 6 months' imprisonment, and adopted the joint submissions of the parties in relation to the categorisation of the other offences under the relevant sentencing guidelines. He went on to observe that:

On behalf of the Solicitor General, Mr Holland makes no criticism as to the Recorder's adoption of the parties' joint submissions as to the categorisation of the offences of controlling or coercive behaviour and intentional strangulation under the relevant sentencing guidelines. Although it is pointed out that the Recorder made no reference to the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors, no criticism is made as to the notional terms which he determined for the offences, prior to any reduction to reflect the timing of the offender's pleas of guilty. Moreover, although the extent of the reduction in relation to each of the offences was generous, namely over 16 per cent for count 1, 33 per cent for count 2, 12.5 per cent for count 11 and over 11 per cent for count 4, the Solicitor General does not seek to suggest that this in itself would contribute to rendering the overall sentence unduly lenient. Nor indeed that there was no reference to the dangerous offender provisions.

However, what Mr Holland has sought to bring to our attention is the lack of reference by the Recorder to the principle of totality, and the lack of upward adjustment in the sentence imposed upon the lead offence for controlling or coercive behaviour, so as to take into account the overall criminality arising from the other offences on the indictment. It is submitted that in accordance with the Sentencing Council's Overarching Guideline on Totality, such an upward adjustment was required in order to ensure that the total sentence was ''just and proportionate to reflect the overall criminality involved" and that the failure to do so in this case has resulted in an unduly lenient sentence being imposed upon the offender.

On behalf of the offender, Mr Islam Khan, in helpful submission accepts that the sentence was lenient but he submits that it was not unduly lenient. He points out that in the course of his sentencing remarks the judge had reflected upon the serious nature of the offending. However, he submits that there was here a substantial amount of mitigation available to the offender, including the remorse that he had expressed in the various letters that he had written to both his family and to the court. He points out that the offender had already spent some time in custody and in those circumstances, as the judge explained, he was entitled to take a pragmatic course and to impose a suspended sentence order rather than a period of immediate imprisonment, and that the basis for that approach was that this was more likely to assist the long-term rehabilitation of the offender. In those circumstances, it is submitted that whilst lenient, this was not an unduly lenient sentence and that we should not intervene in this case.

This case involved a prolonged period over which the offender repeatedly subjected his wife to derogatory and undermining verbal abuse, and used or threatened her with physical violence, much of which was undertaken in the presence of the three children of the family. We have no doubt that, for understandable reasons, the offender's conduct was kept as a secret within the immediate family unit, such that outsiders, including members of the offender's wider family, would have been unaware as to the insidious nature of the events which were taking place. Indeed, it would appear that it was the attack upon both his wife and Nathan which took place in public and was recorded on CCTV which brought these matters to light, resulting in a police investigation which revealed the wider ambit of the offender's conduct towards his family. The resulting harm to the offender's wife and the three children should not be underestimated and we note with concern that despite the contents of the letters which he wrote to both his wife and the children, and indeed to the court, the recent view of the Probation Service is that his focus is upon the impact of these matters upon himself, rather than his family.

We have seen and read a number of further character references and letters which reflect the observations which had been made in previous such letters and indeed we have seen an undated report from Karen Higgins, a counsellor, who has said that the offender has been punctually attending counselling sessions on a weekly basis with her and observed that it was her professional opinion that if the offender were sent back to prison, he would not progress mentally at that stage, and that their work together would be hampered. We will reflect on those further observations in due course but, on the material which was available to the Recorder at the hearing, we have no doubt the Recorder was correct to adopt the categorisation of the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour under the sentencing guideline as agreed between the parties as being a category A1 offence, just as he was correct to adopt the categorisation of the offence of intentional strangulation as a category B1 offence.

The result of this is that the appropriate starting point in respect of each of these offences was 2½ years' custody, before taking into account any additional criminality arising from the two offences of assault by beating, in respect of which the circumstances giving rise to count 1 were particularly troubling.

Although we agree with the Solicitor General that it would have been better had the Recorder briefly set out the aggravating and mitigating factors present in this case, as the resulting notional terms in respect of each of the offences is not the subject of criticism, we do not need to say anything more than observe that we consider that they are a fair reflection of those competing factors. Moreover, whilst the reduction from the notional terms to reflect the timing of the pleas of guilty may be considered to be generous, we also accept that this in itself would not contribute to rendering the overall sentence unduly lenient.

Where we regret we do consider that the Recorder fell into error, was in relation to the issue as to whether the overall sentence imposed upon the offender was just and proportionate for the offending as a whole. Although the Sentencing Council's Guideline on Totality provides valuable guidance as to the structuring of sentences where multiple offending is involved, ultimately, whether by imposing consecutive or concurrent sentences, it is necessary for the court to sit back and:

Looking at the matter for ourselves, we consider that this may have been one of those cases in which it would have been better to have structured the sentences by imposing consecutive sentences for some of the offences, namely counts 1 and 3. However, nothing turns on this, and we are content to consider whether the period of imprisonment imposed on the offender on count 4 was just and proportionate to the offending as a whole. In doing so we of course acknowledge that there was a significant amount of mitigation available to the offender, including the fact that after a difficult start in life, he had worked hard and supported members of both his immediate and wider family.

However, making as much allowance for this as was reasonable, we have concluded that the period of imprisonment imposed upon the offender in respect of count 4, was not such as to reflect the offender's overall criminality arising from these offences, and in particular the distinct and serious offending against two of his children.

We have reminded ourselves that for a sentence to be considered to be unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is necessary for it to fall "outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate": see Attorney General's Reference (No 4 of 1989) [1989] 11 Cr App R (S) 521.

In our judgment, the sentence imposed upon the offender was, for the reasons we have sought to explain, outside the range of sentences which the court could reasonably consider appropriate, and was for that reason unduly lenient.

We consider that the least period of imprisonment which ought to have been imposed upon the offender on count 4, in order for it to be a just and proportionate reflection of the offending as a whole, was one of 3½ years' imprisonment. Even though we are of the view that the Recorder imposed an unduly lenient sentence, we retain a discretion as to whether or not we should interfere with the lower court's sentence. We have reflected upon the more recent material which has been provided to us. However, we do not consider that it materially adds to the evidence which was before the Recorder and in our view does not assist the offender. We have also considered the view that was taken by the Recorder that in order to better effect the rehabilitation of the offender, a period under supervision by the Probation Service would be more beneficial than a period of supervision after release on licence.

Whilst we have taken all those matters into account, we consider that the nature and seriousness of these offences is such that the period of imprisonment that we have identified is one which should be imposed immediately. However, we note that as part of the order that was imposed by the Recorder, it included a curfew requirement. To put the matter shortly, it seems to us that it was of sufficient stringency, that we should take that into account. We understand that the offender has adhered to the electronically monitored curfew for a period of about 4 months and therefore, we will reduce the period which we would otherwise have imposed by a period of 2 months.

In these circumstances, as the resulting sentence is not able to be suspended in its operation, we will quash the sentences on each count and impose the following concurrent periods of immediate imprisonment:

Therefore, the total sentence imposed upon the offender is now one of 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment. The restraining orders will remain as ordered by the Recorder, namely until further order. To that extent the Reference succeeds.