Peleki Sadole [2019] EWCA Crim 915

Peleki Sadole [2019] EWCA Crim 915 concerned an appeal against a sentence imposed by a court martial for three assaults on a fellow naval trainee; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two charges of battery and one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was sentenced to six months’ service detention in total, comprising two months on the first charge, one month on the second, and three months on the third, to run consecutively. The Board also ordered him to pay £3,000 compensation to the victim.

The three offences occurred in September and October 2018. On 29 September, after drinking in the mess, the appellant asked Engineering Technician Daryl Craig to change the song he was listening to. When Mr Craig refused, the appellant grabbed his face, scraped his fingers downwards over his eyes causing a minor scratch, and spat on him. The appellant apologised and Mr Craig did not report it. On 11 October, again after drinking, Mr Craig asked two colleagues to be quiet. The appellant walked up and punched him in the face, causing a bloody nose. The appellant again apologised and Mr Craig again did not report the offence. On 18 October, after more drinking, Mr Craig was looking for his mobile telephone. The appellant told him to go back to bed and when Mr Craig refused, the appellant punched him to the face. This blow required twelve external sutures and two internal dissolvable sutures and left a permanent scar above the upper lip.

Mr Craig provided a statement describing increased anxiety following the attacks. He considered self-harming at one point. The wound became infected and was slow to heal. He had to repeat part of his training course because of time spent receiving medical attention. He was also concerned about the impact of reporting the offences on other members of the course, some of whom were friends of the appellant.

The appellant was thirty-three at the time of sentence and had enlisted in the Navy on 11 February 2018. He had served just over a year by the time of sentencing. He had no military or civilian convictions or cautions and no formal disciplinary record. Character references were provided by several senior officers and colleagues, all of whom supported his retention in the service. Warrant Officer Pope described him as courteous, polite and helpful. Chief Petty Officer Robertson and Warrant Officer Power both considered him an asset to the Navy. His rugby coach described him as hard-working with an incredible attitude towards team working, respectful and showing no signs of aggression. His class leader regarded the offences as totally out of character and described the appellant as kind, caring and always ready to help others.

A pre-sentence report noted that the appellant had taken responsibility, expressed remorse, attended an alcohol awareness briefing and stopped drinking. The author considered whether family bereavements and his wife’s ill health may have contributed to increased alcohol use. He was assessed as posing a low risk of reconviction. The author suggested that any period of detention might be suspended.

Mr Jeremy Wright advanced five grounds of appeal. First, he submitted that the Assistant Judge Advocate General had wrongly categorised the assault occasioning actual bodily harm as falling within category two of the Definitive Sentencing Guideline, when both prosecution and defence had submitted it fell within category three given the level of injury. Second, he contended that the Board had failed to take into account evidence from a witness, Mr Cavanagh, that the complainant could be loud and aggressive when drunk, which may have provoked the appellant. The appellant had also suggested in interview that the complainant had made disrespectful comments about his religion. Third, the period of detention was too long and ought to have been suspended given the appellant’s previous good character and personal mitigation. The immediate detention had delayed his first posting due on 1 April and had financial consequences because during service detention he received only an allowance rather than his salary. The appellant was the sole provider for his wife and two children in Fiji, to whom he usually sent nine hundred pounds from his monthly net pay of one thousand three hundred and fifty pounds. The total financial effect of the sentence, including compensation, was approximately eight thousand pounds. Fourth, although there were three offences against the same victim, they occurred within a short period by someone who had never previously resorted to violence and could be explained by drinking to excess to cope with bereavement and by some provocation. The appellant was unused to drinking but found himself in a heavy drinking culture. He now recognised that his drinking had become a problem and had taken steps to address it. Fifth, the appellant’s success on the training course, including winning the Captain’s Prize as the best overall trainee and the Class Prize awarded by fellow trainees to the most popular on the course, showed that when sober he had much to offer. He was generally considered calm and non-aggressive when sober, even by the complainant, who accepted that the appellant was now genuinely remorseful and stated that they remained friends.

Mr Edwards, for the Service Prosecuting Authority, emphasised that service detention is very different from imprisonment, particularly where the appellant was to be retained in the service. The Military Corrective Training Centre trained detainees to improve their efficiency, discipline and morale so that they would become effective on their return to service. He rejected the assertion that the Board had wrongly rejected provocation. The evidence of provocation was weak. There was none in relation to the third charge. The only suggestion came from Mr Cavanagh, who stated that on the second occasion he had a heated debate with the complainant which became loud, the complainant told Mr Cavanagh to shut up, and this was followed by the appellant punching Mr Craig. Both the complainant and another witness, Mr Gannon, described the second assault as unprovoked and no basis of plea had been tendered to suggest otherwise.

The Court held that the sentence was neither excessive nor wrong in principle. The six months’ service detention imposed was for three offences. The Definitive Guideline provided starting points and ranges for a single offence. The Court rejected the suggestion that the Board should have followed the parties’ submissions on categorisation. The Board’s categorisation of the assault occasioning actual bodily harm as falling within category two was correct. The starting point for a category two assault occasioning actual bodily harm standing alone was six months. The battery offences were rightly met with consecutive sentences, though the Board had reduced the ultimate sentence to reflect the principle of totality.

The Court noted that every time the appellant assaulted Mr Craig he caused an injury. Only on the last occasion was the injury permanent. The appellant obviously appreciated on each occasion that he had overreacted because he apologised each time, yet he continued to drink to excess and to assault the complainant. If there was any provocation, it was trivial. The offences were all significant in a service context and in the context of people attending a training course. Given the repetition of the offences and the injuries caused, they merited immediate detention.

Lady Justice Hallett emphasised that service detention is not the same as imprisonment. It does not carry the same stigma and where the serviceman is to be retained, as the appellant was, it involves training to assist in their future career. The regime at the Military Corrective Training Centre is akin to general military training and not to imprisonment. If the appellant served at most four months, he would not be liable to serve the remaining two months on licence and would not be subject to recall.

The ultimate issue was whether the overall sentence of six months’ service detention combined with the compensation order was excessive. In the Court’s judgment, it was not. The Court accepted that it was most unfortunate that the appellant had started a promising career in the Navy in this fashion and that the consequences for him had been significant. They could have been far worse had the Navy and the Court Martial Board not borne in mind his powerful mitigation. In short, the sentence was upheld as neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle despite the appellant’s positive character evidence and the distinct nature of service detention.