Christopher Cooksey [2019] EWCA Crim 1410

In R v Christopher James Cooksey [2019] EWCA Crim 1410 the Court of Appeal (Lady Justice Hallett, Mrs Justice Simler and Sir John Royce) refused a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following the applicant’s conviction for domestic violence offences.

On 17 October 2018 at Cardiff Crown Court before His Honour Judge Crowther QC, Mr Cooksey was convicted after trial of false imprisonment, two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault by beating. On 31 October 2018 he was sentenced to an extended sentence of six years, comprising a custodial term of four years and an extended period of licence of two years, for false imprisonment. Concurrent sentences of twenty months, eighteen months and three months were imposed on the other counts respectively.

The applicant and the complainant, Miss Stephanie Watkis, began a relationship in August 2017. The applicant became obsessed with her previous sexual partners, repeatedly questioning her about them. Count 4 concerned an assault in which the applicant, after seeing an innocuous message she had sent in January 2016 about another man’s appearance, became furious. He punched her repeatedly to the ribs and face, causing a black eye, bruising to the arm and pain in the ribs. He called her a “whore” and forced her to drink a large amount of Malibu. The following day he refused to let her go to work. When she received a message stating she could be collected, she fabricated a story about being in a car accident. The applicant had moved the flat key from its usual place, locked the door, unplugged her phone from the wall and effectively trapped her in the flat. That was the subject of count 5, which also related to the following week during which she was allowed to leave the flat only in the applicant’s company and was not permitted to leave his side.

On Boxing Day 2017, the subject of count 6, the applicant again assaulted her after questioning her about previous partners, repeatedly punching her to the ribs. The following day he further assaulted her, captured on CCTV, by slapping her in the face and poking her face, the subject of count 7. On 28 December 2017 she attempted to end her life by taking an overdose. She was hospitalised until 2 January 2018. Following the overdose she made a complaint to the police. In interview the applicant denied any violence, claiming he was a caring boyfriend, denied controlling behaviour and denied checking her messages and mobile phone. The applicant was of previous good character apart from an unrelated caution.

In sentencing, the judge identified the serious nature of the assaults and the fact that Miss Watkis had been kept in her own home. He took account of the applicant’s age and lack of previous convictions and the absence of formal evidence of such previous behaviour. The judge applied the sentencing guidelines for assault, domestic abuse and totality, categorising each assault as category 1. They were sustained and repeated attacks upon a woman vulnerable both physically and by virtue of an emotional connection to the applicant. Further aggravation arose because the assaults took place in the home where she was entitled to feel safe. There was degradation, constant insults, the Malibu incident, and each offence had a significant ongoing effect. The applicant had effectively held her prisoner for a week to prevent her reporting the matter.

On dangerousness, the judge stated that he took into account the trial evidence, the pre-sentence report, the mitigation and ignored disputed previous allegations. The evidence made clear that within weeks of meeting Miss Watkis the applicant isolated her, made her subject to his dominance enforced by ruthless violence using his physical power to subjugate her and by demeaning behaviour. He had caused serious physical and enduring psychological harm and driven her to the brink of tragedy. The pre-sentence report indicated a high risk of re-offending if the applicant was in a relationship. The judge observed that whilst he proposed to make a restraining order in relation to Miss Watkis, he needed to consider the protection of the wider public, concluding that an extended sentence was necessary.

On behalf of the applicant, Mr Baker contended first that the overall sentence was excessive and secondly that the judge was wrong to conclude that the applicant was dangerous. He submitted that the pre-sentence report made references to complaints by previous partners and that it would be wrong for the judge to have taken those into account. It was apparent from the sentencing remarks that the judge had put to one side any disputed allegation and dealt with the applicant on the basis of what he had seen and heard during the case.

The court emphasised that it treats incidents of domestic violence more seriously than previously, particularly where coupled with coercive and controlling behaviour in a domestic setting. The single judge had concluded that the applicant fully deserved the sentence, which lay well within the broad parameters of the judge’s sentencing discretion and was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The court agreed with those words and concluded that the sentence was indeed neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. In short, despite counsel’s strenuous efforts, the renewed application was refused.