Sentencing Guidelines and Precedent in Unlawful Wounding: Blackmore v R [2024] EWCA Crim 993

Introduction

The case of Blackmore, R. v ([2024] EWCA Crim 993) presents significant judicial analysis on sentencing guidelines within the context of unlawful wounding under Section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. This judgment, delivered by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on July 19, 2024, examines the appellant's appeal against an 81-month imprisonment sentence. The appellant, with a substantial criminal history, was convicted of wounding with intent, leading to severe physical and psychological harm to the victim, Harry Crawford.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant, a 53-year-old with ten prior convictions, was sentenced to 81 months in prison for unlawfully wounding Mr. Crawford with intent. The assault involved the use of a glass as a weapon, resulting in significant injuries to the victim, including the severing of an artery and long-term psychological trauma. The appellant appealed the sentence on grounds that it was manifestly excessive, arguing that the starting point of the sentencing guidelines was too high, aggravating factors were overemphasized, and the level of harm was incorrectly categorized. The Court of Appeal reviewed these arguments and ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence as just and proportionate.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references the Offences against the Person Act 1861, particularly Section 18, which deals with wounding with intent. While specific prior cases are not detailed in the provided text, the judgment implicitly relies on established sentencing guidelines and previous interpretations of Section 18 offenses. The Court emphasizes consistency with existing legal standards, ensuring that the sentencing reflects both the severity of the offense and the offender’s history.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously reviewed the Recorder's sentencing remarks, focusing on the application of the sentencing guidelines. Key points in their reasoning include:

• Culpability Category: The offense was correctly classified under Category B culpability due to the appellant's use of a weapon (glass) in the assault.
• Harm Assessment: The Court recognized the significant overlap between Category 2B and 3B harm ranges. They concluded that the harm inflicted justified placing the case at the upper end of Category 3B, justifying a notional sentence of six years.
• Aggravating Factors: The appellant's extensive criminal history and intoxication at the time of the offense were appropriately considered, leading to an uplift of nine months.
• Mitigating Factors: Although the appellant presented mitigating factors such as personal loss, the Court found them insufficient to substantially reduce the sentence given the severity of the offense.
• Manifest Excessiveness: The appellate court determined that the Recorder's sentence did not breach the principle of proportionality and was not manifestly excessive, thereby justifying the maintenance of the original sentence.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the application of sentencing guidelines in cases involving serious personal injuries and prior extensive criminal backgrounds. It underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring sentences are proportionate to both the harm caused and the offender's criminal history. Future cases involving similar offenses will reference this judgment for guidance on categorizing harm levels and determining appropriate sentencing ranges, particularly in instances where guidelines categories overlap.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sentencing Guidelines Categories 2B and 3B

The sentencing guidelines categorize offenses based on culpability and harm. Category 2B typically involves harm that is significant but not as severe as Category 3B. However, there is an overlap between these categories:

• Category 2B: Starting at five years, with a range of four to seven years.
• Category 3B: Starting at four years, with a range of three to six years.

This overlap can create ambiguity in categorizing harm levels, as seen in this case. The Court navigated this by assessing the comprehensive impact on the victim to determine the appropriate category.

Manifest Excessiveness

A sentence is considered "manifestly excessive" if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense's severity or the offender’s culpability. The appellant argued that the 81-month sentence exceeded what was necessary for the offense, but the Court found this not to be the case based on the guidelines and circumstances.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Blackmore, R. v reaffirms the structured application of sentencing guidelines in serious assault cases. By upholding the original sentence, the Court emphasized the importance of consistency, proportionality, and the consideration of both the offender's criminal history and the victim's harm. This judgment serves as a critical reference point for future cases, ensuring that sentences remain just and aligned with established legal principles.