R v Michelle Ellis

___________________ Friday 8 August 2025 LORD JUSTICE LEWIS:

1. We make a direction pursuant to section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act that no matter relating to any person who is under the age of 18 is to be included in any publication if that is likely to lead to any member of the public to identify that person. This order ends when that person attains the age of

18.

2. On 13 October 2023, the applicant, who is now aged 46, was made the subject of a non-molestation order by the Family Court in Leeds. That order prohibited her from doing various acts in relation to her husband and her children.

3. On 8 March 2024, in the Crown Court at Leeds, having earlier pleaded guilty at the magistrates' court and been committed for sentence to the Crown Court, the applicant was sentenced for three offences of breach of the non-molestation order, contrary to section 42A(1) and (5) of the Family Law Act 1998, and for one offence of stalking involving serious alarm or distress, contrary to section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On each offence His Honour Judge Mansell KC imposed a community order for 12 months, with a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 15 days, to be served concurrently.

4. In deciding on the appropriate sentence, the judge had regard to the facts of the case, to the appellant's mental health, and to the fact that she had no previous convictions. He had regard to the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines.

5. In relation to the breaches of the non-molestation order, he assessed culpability as category A and harm as category

2. The starting point for each offence was 12 months' custody, with a range of sentences from a high level community order to two years' custody.

6. In relation to stalking, the judge assessed culpability to be high, category B, and harm as category

1. Under the guidelines for stalking in breach of section 2 of the Act, the starting point is a community order. In fact, the applicant's offence was contrary to section 4A. The judge could have referred to different guidelines which provided for more severe sentences. In any event, he imposed a community order.

7. The applicant applied for leave to appeal against that sentence. The application was refused by the single judge. She now applies for an extension of time (90 days) in which to renew that application and for leave to appeal against sentence.

8. We have read the papers in this case. They include, but are not limited to, the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal and the letters sent to the court. We have read carefully the judge's sentencing remarks.

9. In refusing leave to appeal, the single judge said this: "1. I appreciate that it is not easy to draft grounds of appeal on your own and that you have found court proceedings extremely stressful.

2. However, the only court order you have appealed against to me is in respect of the sentence passed on you at Leeds Crown Court for breaching a non-molestation order and for stalking.

3. It is important to understand that I am therefore only considering a possible appeal against sentence and not the circumstances in which the non-molestation order was made or the circumstances in which you pleaded guilty to these offences.

4. So far as the sentence is concerned, you received a community order for 12 months with a requirement that you attend 15 days of Rehabilitation Requirements. This order was designed to help you.

5. Sentencing guidelines for your offences suggest that a sentence of custody could often be appropriate. The judge appears to have applied a more generous guideline for the stalking offence and not the guideline for a section 4A offence. He took account of your personal circumstances and decided to make a community order. He had good reason to doubt that you would co-operate with any further report. There is nothing wrong with the sentence he passed and there are no good grounds for criticising it.

6. You also need a very long extension of time. I would only grant that if there were any grounds for appealing against the sentence. As I have said, I have not been able to find any grounds and so the application for the extension of time must also be refused.

7. I know that this will come as a disappointment to you. I have, however, looked at everything very carefully and I cannot see any grounds for an appeal against sentence."

10. We agree with those observations. We understand that this will be a disappointment to the applicant, but, like the single judge, we cannot see any arguable grounds for appealing against the sentence that was imposed in this case.

11. As there are no arguable grounds, there is no purpose in granting an extension of time in which to renew the application.

12. Accordingly, we refuse the application for the extension of time and we also refuse leave to appeal. _____________________________ 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: [email protected] ______________________________