Introduction

This commentary examines the Court of Appeal decision in Popescu, R. v (EWCA Crim 567, 27 March 2025). Daniel Mihai Popescu (“the appellant”) pleaded guilty to attempted murder and stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On 28 May 2024 he received an extended determinate sentence of 20 years 4 months for the attempted murder; no separate penalty was imposed for stalking.

The substantive issue on appeal was whether the sentencing judge correctly categorised the attempted murder offence under the Sentencing Act 2020 guidelines (B2 vs B3) and, in turn, whether the resulting total sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming the judge was entitled both to apply an uplift for extreme culpability and to impose an extended sentence beyond the ordinary range.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant had stalked his former partner, Andreea Pintili, when she was heavily pregnant, culminating in a premeditated knife attack on 5 December 2023. Andreea survived with non-fatal yet penetrating wounds to her back. At first instance, the judge categorised the attempted murder as B2 (high culpability, planned use of a weapon), assessed harm at Category 2, then imposed a determinate term of 17 years 4 months (after plea credit) plus a three-year extended licence period.

On appeal, counsel conceded the extended sentence was inevitable, challenging only the B2 categorisation (arguing B3 was correct). The Court of Appeal agreed that physical harm in this case was properly Category 3 but held that the offence involved “extreme” high-culpability factors—lying in wait, repeated stabbing, targeting a pregnant woman—and justified both an uplift beyond the ordinary range and the extended sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents and Guidelines Cited

• Sentencing Act 2020, s.63(3): Requires consideration of harm caused, intended or foreseeable in categorising harm.
• Overarching Sentencing Guideline on Domestic Abuse: Informs aggravating features when offences occur in a domestic context.
• Attempted Murder Categories (B2 vs B3): Defined in the Sentencing Council’s murder/attempted murder guidelines. B2 is high culpability but B3 covers attacks involving very serious or multiple forms of harm or aggravation.
• Extended Sentences Provision (Sentencing Act 2020, s.279): Allows courts to extend determinate sentences when there is a significant risk of serious harm in the future.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal addressed two main points:

1. Culpability and Harm Categorisation: The trial judge placed the offence in B2, but on appeal physical harm was re-categorised as Category 3 (penetrating wounds). Psychological harm was also found to meet the higher threshold given the victim’s profound fear, ongoing anxiety, and pregnancy.
2. “Extreme Nature” Uplift and Extended Sentence: The guidelines permit a sentence above the normal range when offences display extreme high culpability factors. Here the appellant lay in wait, executed a violent, targeted stabbing of a pregnant former partner, and would only stop when a bystander intervened. The Court held these facts warranted both an uplift beyond the top of the B3 range and a lengthy extended sentence to protect the public.

Impact on Future Cases

This decision cements key principles for sentencing attempted murder:

• Even if categorisation between B2 and B3 is arguable, extreme high-culpability factors (premeditation, lying-in-wait, vulnerability of victim) can justify sentencing above the ordinary range.
• Section 63(3) mandates courts to weigh intended and foreseeable harm, not merely actual injury.
• Extended determinate sentences under s.279 will be imperative in domestic violence cases where an offender poses ongoing serious risk, especially involving pregnant or otherwise vulnerable victims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Culpability Categories (B2 vs B3): These are gradations in the sentencing guidelines for attempted murder. B2 covers high-culpability attacks with weapons and planning; B3 covers attacks with additional aggravating features or particularly serious harm.

Extended Determinate Sentence: A prison term split into a custodial period plus an extended licence. It applies when an offender is assessed as dangerous—i.e., a high risk of serious reoffending.

Overarching Domestic Abuse Guideline: A framework ensuring that violence in domestic relationships is recognised as an aggravating factor, reflecting the power imbalance and vulnerability.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Popescu clarifies that in attempted murder cases involving extreme high-culpability factors, sentencing courts may properly exceed the benchmark ranges and impose extended determinate sentences to protect the public. It underscores the importance of considering both actual and foreseeable harm, the victim’s vulnerability (pregnancy, domestic context), and the offender’s planning. This authority will guide sentencing judges in addressing the most serious violent offences, ensuring that justice and public safety are balanced.