R v Richard Alexander Welsh

On 22 May 2025 in the Crown Court at Preston, following pleas of guilty to stalking and contempt, the appellant, Richard Welsh (then aged 51), was sentenced by His Honour Judge Knowles KC as follows:

The appellant appeals against his sentence by leave of the Single Judge.

The material background facts are as follows. The complainant was the ex-partner of the appellant. The offending occurred over a period of some 9 months between June 2023 and February 2024.

On 22 June 2023 the complainant and the appellant, who was still in a relationship at the time, attended the complainant's son's wedding. The appellant thought that the complainant and her ex-husband were or had been having an affair. The appellant confronted the complainant, who denied the affair and their relationship ended. The appellant started to send numerous threatening and abusive messages to the complainant and published a Facebook post alleging that she had been unfaithful.

The following day, as the appellant was leaving the house, the complainant noticed a petrol can on the driveway after she had received a message from the appellant stating that if the complainant did not call him in the next 25 minutes the appellant would be having a barbecue, which she took as a threat and reported the matter to the police.

On 26 June 2023 the complainant had a missed call from her daughter and the appellant. When she called her daughter back, she was told that the appellant had been at their home address shouting and going ballistic, although she managed to lock him out of the house.

Thereafter the complainant received threatening phone calls and about one hundred messages from the appellant, including threats to harm her daughter and ex-husband and threats to report her to her employer and to Social Services raising questions about her mental capacity.

The complainant reported these matters to the police and the appellant was placed on police bail from 2 July 2023, with conditions including that he must not contact the complainant by any means.

Subsequently the appellant attended the complainant's home address and the horse yard of the property. The complainant received three funeral packs through the post which were addressed to her despite the absence of any order by the complainant. She also received a message from the estate agents Purple Bricks regarding a visit to value her property which she had not made. The appellant sent threatening messages to members of the complainant's family including the complainant's vulnerable elderly mother. When the complainant took her car to a garage it was discovered that two wheel nuts were missing from one of the front wheels.

On 18 November 2023 the appellant sent a message to the complainant stating: "Just to let you know, it will end tonight. I've had enough, can't take anymore" together with a picture of a glass containing liquid and about 20 tablets. The complainant reported the matter to the police and received a call from the appellant stating he hoped she could live with herself as this was all her fault.

The appellant sent messages to the complainant and her new partner asking when they had met and whether that was prior to the appellant and the complainant separating.

The appellant sent messages regarding the complainant's stables after which the complainant had cameras installed covering the stable. Further messages had been received from the appellant which made the complainant feel that the appellant had been watching her. The appellant set up a false Facebook profile which posted images of the complainant and stated that she was a "lying rat who sleeps with men for money and beats dogs and horses". The appellant posted further posts on Facebook which made the complainant feel that the appellant had been in the area.

Following arrest during his interview the appellant denied the offending. He admitted that he might have sent messages to the complainant in anger, threatening to kill her ex-husband but he did not intend her to fear that his threat would be carried out. The appellant did not consider that his course of conduct amounted to harassment as the complainant had not told him to stop sending the messages.

Describing impact of the harassment on her life and that of her daughter, the complainant stated:

The pre-sentence report noted that the appellant had demonstrated a pattern of similar offending when his relationships came to an end although he was now in a stable relationship with a new partner.

The Judge found that the stalking offence was a culpability B case given the persistent action over a prolonged period of time, conduct intended to maximise fear or distress and the high degree of planning involved. The offence was harm 1 based on very serious distress caused to the victim and the victim being caused to make considerable adjustments to her lifestyle to avoid contact with the appellant.

A B1 offence gives a starting point of 2 years and 6 months' custody with a range of 1 to 4 years' custody.

Aggravating factors were the appellant's previous relevant conviction for a firearm's offence, the offending occurred in a domestic context, the impact on others, intoxication on the part of the appellant and the fact that he was on bail during the period of offending.

The Judge considered that the aggravating factors combined to take the offending beyond the range in the guideline and that there was little mitigation. This gave a term of 60 months, before credit of 10 per cent for a late guilty plea, resulting in a sentence of 4½ years' imprisonment.

At the sentencing hearing the appellant said: "Four years, thanks, you bitch." When brought back into court the appellant admitted his contempt of court. For such contempt the Judge imposed a further 4 months' imprisonment to run consecutively, giving a total sentence of 4 years and 10 months' imprisonment.

We are very grateful to Ms Phillips for her written and oral submissions on behalf of the appellant. The grounds of appeal are that the sentence was manifestly excessive, in that:

Even allowing for the powerful submission by Ms Phillips, which we accept, that the firearms offence was not recent and was different in nature to the current offending, there remained a number of culpability B and harm 1 features of the offending that entitled the Judge to adjust upwards from the starting point before further upwards adjustment for the multiple aggravating factors. This combination entitled the Judge to fix a term above the top end of the range before any mitigation and credit for the late guilty plea.

We consider that it was appropriate for the Judge to impose a consecutive sentence for the contempt but we agree with Ms Phillips that the period of 4 months was manifestly excessive, particularly having regard to the principle of totality. The outburst was offensive and an attack on the administration of justice but it was a very short outburst and it did not interfere with the sentencing exercise, which had already been completed. The appellant admitted the contempt immediately, and apologised for his outburst.

In all the circumstances, we reduce the sentence on the contempt offence from 4 months to 1 month, consecutive, giving a total sentence of 4 years 7 months' imprisonment.

For the above reasons, to the extent identified, the appeal is allowed.