{"id":574902,"date":"2026-04-16T05:00:40","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T03:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-edwin-hawe\/"},"modified":"2026-04-16T05:00:40","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T03:00:40","slug":"r-v-edwin-hawe","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-edwin-hawe\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Edwin Hawe"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>(Approved) JUDGE ST JOHN-STEVENS: 1. On 3\u00a0November\u00a02023 the applicant (then aged 27) pleaded guilty before the Hatfield Magistrates&#039; Court and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence pursuant to section\u00a04 of the Sentencing Act 2020. In total he was committed in relation to seven offences, those being: making a\u00a0threat to kill, three offences of sending a\u00a0threatening message, an\u00a0offence of threatening to damage or destroy property, and two offences of assault (one assault by beating and one common assault). 2. The sentencing took place on 11\u00a0September\u00a02024 at the Crown Court at St Albans before Ms\u00a0Recorder Nicola Williams. The applicant was then aged 28. The sentence passed in relation to all of those offences was one of an\u00a018-month community order. That community order had five requirements appended to it, those being: an\u00a0alcohol abstinence and a\u00a0monitoring requirement for 100 days; a\u00a06-month alcohol treatment requirement; a building better relationships programme; and rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 20 days; and 120\u00a0hours of unpaid work. There was also a restraining order imposed for a\u00a0period of 5\u00a0years. 3. The court has before it an\u00a0application for an\u00a0extension of time of 9 days for leave to appeal against the sentence, which was referred to this court. 4. We say straightaway we grant leave for that extension of time &#8212; it is wholly explicable &#8212; and proceed to the substantive appeal. 5. The facts can be set out quite briefly. This applicant in August 2023 commenced a relationship with Jessica Taylor. It appears that on or around 28\u00a0October of that year she indicated she was thinking of ending that relationship. That news was not received well by the applicant. He became abusive over the following two days during which time the offences were committed. She believed at the material times he was suffering the influence of drink. He sent her a\u00a0number of messages. He later that day called her home phone it was in fact answered by a friend. He was verbally abusive to that friend and made a\u00a0threat to kill, which is the subject of the charge. It is of note that that friend did not in fact make a\u00a0statement. 6. The following morning and thereafter further messages were sent by the applicant to her. Some were apologising, some were conciliatory, others were abusive. Standing back and looking at those messages, they were of a\u00a0controlling nature. They became offensive, calling her grossly offensive sexualised names. In the early hours of 1\u00a0November, he then moved on to sending threatening voice notes to her, which are reflected in the two offences concerning the communication. He then went to her address at around 3.30 am on 1\u00a0November. He appeared agitated. He became angry. Jessica Taylor, concerned for the safety of her son and sister in law, suggested he should leave with her. She drove him from the premises. During the course of that journey, he became more verbally abusive. He threatened to burn two restaurants down owned by her family (the subject of the two charges). Then whilst driving, he pulled the car\u2019s handbrake up. She was fearful they would have an\u00a0accident. At one stage he took her phone it appeared that he realised that she had blocked him on that phone. She had by then stopped the car, at which point he grabbed her collar, threw the mobile phone at her and slammed her into the car door. In short, that course of conduct is reflected in the charges. 7. The court has considered the victim personal statement and the fear that that victim was placed in. 8. In terms of antecedents, it demands consideration of the chronology. \u2022 In total the applicant has three convictions for nine offences, that offending starting in\u00a0September\u00a02021, relevant convictions including offences of damaging property, threatening words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, aggravated criminal damage. and racially aggravated intentional harm. \u2022 On 13 October whilst on bail for the matters the sentence of which we are considering, this applicant was given a\u00a0community order with rehabilitation activity days and unpaid work of 120\u00a0hours. That related to racially aggravated offences. \u2022 Next in time was on 1st December 2023, in the Western and Central Magistrates&#039; Court the applicant was sentenced to a term of 12 weeks&#039; imprisonment for an offence of battery, and for an\u00a0offence of sending a threatening message, a\u00a0term of 8 weeks&#039; imprisonment. These sentences to run consecutively one to the other. A restraining order was also imposed. We note that this was in relation to a\u00a0different victim in a domestic context. 9. Before the sentencing court there was a\u00a0pre-sentence report. It is unnecessary to go into detail; it sets out the history of the offending and also the view that these offences demonstrate an\u00a0escalation of the seriousness of domestic abuse. 10. At that sentencing hearing, mitigation was advanced. The court was invited to sentence the applicant to immediate custody, bearing in mind he had served the equivalent of 14 months in custody awaiting his sentence. 11. We have carefully reflected upon when the period of custody commenced which related solely these matters. It was 2\u00a0February 2024, this being at the end of his 20 week term of imprisonment imposed on 1 December 2023. It appears he did not have a suitable\u00a0bail address and bail was revoked. 12. In short, the applicant submits that the total sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle because the judge failed to take into account the applicant&#039;s time on remand. 13. Reliance is placed on a\u00a0number of authorities, the most recent, the case of Lynch [2007] EWCA Crim 2624, which clearly establishes the principle that it is wrong to impose a\u00a0sentence which exposed the appellant to the risk of further punishment when the punishment they had already experienced exceeded the punishment that the judge would have imposed. The applicant contends that the period the applicant served (equivalent to 14 months) equates to or beyond the\u00a0just and proportionate sentence for the offending. Discussion 14. We accept as a\u00a0matter of principle that time spent on remand for an\u00a0offence a\u00a0person is to be sentenced for does not automatically count towards a\u00a0community order. We also accept that a\u00a0community order has components of punishment and rehabilitation, both of which place restrictions on offender&#039;s time, movement, and hence their liberty. We accept that where a\u00a0defendant has already served a\u00a0period of custody which fulfils punishment by in\u00a0effect already serving the proposed identified sentence, it would be wrong to impose further punitive, or indeed in some instances rehabilitative conditions in a\u00a0community order. Each position exposing the offender to the risk of punishment for culpable breaches of any conditions. Standing back, we must consider whether a\u00a0notional appropriate punishment for these offences that the judge could have imposed could have exceeded the effective period of custody the applicant had already served. We have considered the seriousness of the offending &#8212; these offences designed to intimidate and control the victim. The offences being placed in the context of previous convictions establishing an escalating pattern of domestic abuse fuelled by drink and drugs. Also, we note the previous breaches of court orders. We of course stand back, applying the sentencing guidelines, both in sentencing multiple offences but also reflecting the sentence imposed in 2024, when the applicant could have been sentenced for all these matters. In our judgment a significant period of custody would have been correct in principle, but not one that would exceed the effective period of custody already served by this applicant. We accept, therefore, that the applicant would be exposed to the possibility of further punishment if there was a\u00a0culpable breach of the community order imposed. 15. We accept that the correct provisional position would be to extinguish the community order. We acknowledge that this court would be precluded from substituting a\u00a0term of imprisonment. However, the position here is more nuanced to this degree. At the sentencing hearing the sentencing judge had before her a subsisting community order which was imposed on 2\u00a0October\u00a02023. She reflected whether she should revoke that order and resentence. It is clear her intention was, and she did revoke that order and resentenced. In resentencing she took this route: she appended the 120\u00a0hours from the revoked order, to the community order which she imposed for the current offences that were before her. It is perhaps quite understandable that this pragmatic route was taken. It is conceded on behalf of this applicant that if the court was to simply revoke the whole of the community order, the applicant would effectively have the benefit of having the community order of 2\u00a0October quashed. When he had served no punishment for the prior offending refelected by the October community order. 16. It is clear in this qualified way the application before us succeeds on this basis: the sentence is revoked and in its place a community order of 15 months, with up to 15 days of rehabilitation activity requirements and 120\u00a0hours of unpaid work. For clarity, that reflects the sentence that was imposed on 2\u00a0October. To that extent we allow the application and appeal and amend the sentence accordingly. LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS: Ms\u00a0Ososami, thank you very much indeed for your help. So effectively we have transferred over the\u00a0October matter. MS OSOSAMI: I am grateful, my Lord. LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS: But discharged it and resentenced it there, to make it clear. MS OSOSAMI: I am grateful. In my grounds of appeal, I\u00a0also noted the point about a\u00a0representation order; can I\u00a0clarify that point please? LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS: We will also grant a\u00a0representation, limited to junior counsel. MS OSOSAMI: I am grateful. LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS: Thank you indeed for your help. 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<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/ewca\/crim\/2025\/1101\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>(Approved) JUDGE ST JOHN-STEVENS: 1. On 3 November 2023 the applicant (then aged 27) pleaded guilty before the Hatfield Magistrates&#8217; Court and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence pursuant to section 4 of the Sentencing Act 2020. In total he was committed in relation to seven offences, those being: making a threat to kill, three offences of sending&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7875,10013,7922,7707,8348],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-574902","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-applicant","kji_keyword-community","kji_keyword-offences","kji_keyword-order","kji_keyword-sentence","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.5 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R v Edwin Hawe - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-edwin-hawe\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Edwin Hawe\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"(Approved) JUDGE ST JOHN-STEVENS: 1. On 3 November 2023 the applicant (then aged 27) pleaded guilty before the Hatfield Magistrates&#039; Court and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence pursuant to section 4 of the Sentencing Act 2020. In total he was committed in relation to seven offences, those being: making a threat to kill, three offences of sending...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-edwin-hawe\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"8 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-edwin-hawe\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-edwin-hawe\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Edwin Hawe - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-16T03:00:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-edwin-hawe\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-edwin-hawe\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-edwin-hawe\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"R v Edwin Hawe\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R v Edwin Hawe - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-edwin-hawe\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Edwin Hawe","og_description":"(Approved) JUDGE ST JOHN-STEVENS: 1. On 3 November 2023 the applicant (then aged 27) pleaded guilty before the Hatfield Magistrates' Court and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence pursuant to section 4 of the Sentencing Act 2020. In total he was committed in relation to seven offences, those being: making a threat to kill, three offences of sending...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-edwin-hawe\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"8 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-edwin-hawe\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-edwin-hawe\/","name":"R v Edwin Hawe - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-16T03:00:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-edwin-hawe\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-edwin-hawe\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-edwin-hawe\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"R v Edwin Hawe"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/574902","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=574902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=574902"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=574902"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=574902"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=574902"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=574902"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=574902"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=574902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}