R v Budea [2025] EWCA Crim 1287: Consecutive Extended Sentences for Attacks on “Good Samaritan” Interveners, Totality Calibration, and a Robust Approach to Dangerousness

R v Budea [2025] EWCA Crim 1287: Consecutive Extended Sentences for Attacks on “Good Samaritan” Interveners, Totality Calibration, and a Robust Approach to Dangerousness

Introduction

In R v Budea [2025] EWCA Crim 1287, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and an application for an extension of time. The case arises from a violent domestic-relationship context culminating in an attempted murder of the applicant’s former partner and a section 18 grievous bodily harm (wounding with intent) inflicted on a bystander who bravely intervened.

The sentencing judge imposed consecutive extended determinate sentences (EDS): 15 years’ custody plus a two-year extension for attempted murder, and a consecutive five years’ custody plus a one-year extension for the section 18 offence. A concurrent 12 months’ sentence was imposed for possessing a bladed article. The resulting sentence was a total custodial term of 20 years with an extended licence period of three years.

The key issues on appeal were:

  • Whether the categorisation under the Sentencing Council guidelines for attempted murder and section 18 was correct;
  • Whether the section 18 upon a public-spirited intervener warranted a consecutive sentence (rather than concurrent) under the totality guideline;
  • Whether the overall custodial term (with extended licence) was manifestly excessive;
  • Whether the statutory dangerousness threshold for imposing EDS was properly met, especially where the pre-sentence report assessed a high risk of serious harm but a low risk of reconviction; and
  • Whether, despite a 251-day delay, there was sufficient merit to justify extending time and granting leave.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal (Sir Robin Spencer) held that:

  • The sentencing judge’s categorisation of both the attempted murder and the section 18 offence under the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines was correct;
  • Consecutive sentences were justified and appropriate: the section 18 on a bystander rescuer was a distinct offence requiring separate recognition, analogised to guideline examples such as assault on a police officer when fleeing;
  • The principle of totality was faithfully and carefully applied, resulting in a calibrated total custodial term of 20 years (reduced from the combined stand-alone figures) and extended licence of three years;
  • The statutory dangerousness threshold was clearly met; an extended determinate sentence was necessary for public protection, notwithstanding the report’s assessment of low risk of reconviction;
  • The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive; and
  • The renewed application for leave to appeal and the extension of time were refused.

Analysis

Precedents and Normative Sources Cited

The judgment did not cite specific case authorities. Instead, the court’s reasoning was anchored in:

  • Sentencing Council Guideline: Attempted Murder (culpability levels and harm categories);
  • Sentencing Council Guideline: Assault – Section 18 (wounding with intent) (culpability and harm);
  • Sentencing Council Guideline: Totality (concurrent versus consecutive sentences, including the example of an assault on a police officer when attempting to escape); and
  • The statutory dangerousness regime governing extended determinate sentences for specified offences (Criminal Justice Act 2003 framework).

The court relied upon these guidelines and statutory provisions to structure the categorisation of seriousness, the decision to impose consecutive terms, the calibration for totality, and the imposition of extended sentences in light of public protection concerns.

Legal Reasoning

1) Guideline categorisation of the attempted murder

The sentencing judge placed the attempted murder at Level B high culpability because the applicant deliberately took a large kitchen knife to the scene intending to have it available and used it in the attack. The harm was assessed as Category 3. That produced a guideline starting point of 20 years with a range of 15–25 years. Aggravating features included the domestic context (having targeted a former partner) and intoxication. Mitigation comprised limited antecedents, genuine remorse, and no prior history of actual violence toward the complainant.

The judge noted, and the Court of Appeal endorsed, that although the complainant sustained seven stab wounds, the extent of actual harm was less severe than the applicant intended; the jury’s verdict established an intent to kill and to cause greater harm than ultimately occurred. If this count had stood alone, a post-trial sentence of 18 years would have been imposed; to achieve totality across counts, the judge reduced the attempted murder custodial component to 15 years (before adding the two-year licence extension as part of the EDS).

2) Guideline categorisation of the section 18 (wounding with intent)

The section 18 against the bystander, Mr Tipler, was placed in Category 3 harm (no very serious permanent injury), with Level A high culpability due to the use of the knife. The judge identified as a “very significant aggravating feature” that the victim was a member of the public who bravely intervened to avert further harm and likely save the complainant’s life. This moved the offence to the top of the category range: seven years after trial. With 25% guilty plea credit, the standalone sentence would have been five years three months. Applying totality, the judge reduced the count 4 custodial term to five years.

3) Consecutive versus concurrent: distinct offences and the totality guideline

Central to the appeal was whether the section 18 on the rescuer should run concurrently with, or consecutively to, the attempted murder. The totality guideline provides that consecutive sentences are ordinarily appropriate where:

  • the offences are distinct, and
  • an aggravating element requires separate recognition (e.g., assault on a police officer committed while fleeing another offence).

The judge drew an analogy with that example and held that the attack on a public-spirited intervener was a separate and specially aggravating wrong that demanded distinct punishment; the Court of Appeal agreed. The judge then applied totality by substantially reducing the combined custodial terms from what would otherwise have been 23 years three months to 20 years. This approach exemplifies correct application of totality: recognising separate criminality through consecutivity while ensuring the overall sentence is just and proportionate.

4) Dangerousness and extended determinate sentences (EDS)

The judge conducted a careful dangerousness assessment, considering:

  • The pre-sentence report’s evaluation of high risk of serious harm to the public, particularly the complainant and potential future partners, albeit low risk of reconviction;
  • Psychiatric evidence noting excessive drinking and a history of anxiety/depression (with no psychiatric disposal indicated); and
  • The premeditated possession of a knife, the attack on an unarmed woman, the further knife attack on a rescuer, and the subsequent self-stabbing.

The court concluded that there was a significant risk of serious harm from the commission of further specified offences, thus satisfying the statutory threshold for EDS. The imposition of two consecutive extended sentences—producing a combined extended licence period of three years, as recorded by the Court—was upheld. Notably, the Court affirmed that a low assessed risk of reconviction does not negate a finding of dangerousness where the risk, if it materialises, involves serious harm.

5) Out-of-time renewed application and the merits test

Although the applicant was 251 days out of time and offered no good reason, the Court nevertheless considered the merits. Having found no arguable error in categorisation, concurrency/consecutivity, totality, or the dangerousness finding, the Court refused both the renewed application for leave and the extension of time. This reflects the usual appellate approach: where there is no arguable merit, extensions will typically be refused.

Impact and Significance

This judgment carries several practical and doctrinal implications:

  • Attacks on public-spirited interveners attract distinct and severe punishment. The court’s endorsement of consecutive sentencing, and elevation of seriousness for the section 18, confirms that harming a rescuer is a qualitatively distinct wrong requiring separate recognition. Expect prosecutors and sentencers to press for consecutive sentences in similar “Good Samaritan” contexts.
  • Totality as calibration, not dilution. The court approved a careful reduction of both component counts to achieve a proportionate overall sentence without eliding distinct criminality. This operationalises totality as a calibrating tool.
  • Dangerousness reaffirmed despite low reconviction risk. The Court underscores that dangerousness hinges on the risk of serious harm from further specified offences; low frequency of reoffending does not preclude EDS where the potential harm is grave.
  • Consecutive extended determinate sentences are permissible and may aggregate licence exposure. The Court recorded a combined extended licence period of three years where two EDS were imposed consecutively (two-year and one-year extensions). Practitioners should be alive to the overall licence exposure when more than one EDS is passed.
  • Domestic context and intoxication remain aggravating. Domestic background and alcohol use aggravated the attempted murder, consistent with guideline factors and broader public protection objectives.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Attempted murder guideline (culpability/harm): Culpability reflects how blameworthy the conduct is (e.g., bringing and using a weapon raises culpability). Harm considers the actual injury caused (distinct from the intended level of harm). Here, intent to kill was proved, but fortuitous factors limited actual harm, leading to Category 3 harm.
  • Section 18 (wounding with intent): A serious violent offence where the offender intends to cause grievous bodily harm. Use of a weapon and targeting a rescuer significantly elevate seriousness.
  • Totality principle: Courts must ensure the overall sentence for multiple offences is just and proportionate. Offences may be made consecutive where they are distinct or involve separate victims or aggravating elements; the judge then adjusts downwards to avoid an excessive overall term.
  • Consecutive vs. concurrent: Concurrent sentences run at the same time (often for the same incident and victim); consecutive sentences run one after another (often for separate victims/harms or distinct criminality).
  • Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS): A two-part sentence for specified violent/sexual offences when the court finds a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences. It comprises (a) a custodial term and (b) an extension period on licence after release for public protection. In Budea, two EDS were imposed consecutively, resulting in a total extended licence period of three years as recorded by the Court.
  • Dangerousness: A statutory threshold. The court asks whether there is a significant risk that the offender will commit further specified offences causing serious harm. Evidence can include pre-sentence reports, offence features (e.g., premeditation, weapon use), and mental health/alcohol misuse history.
  • Credit for guilty plea: Sentencing discounts apply to encourage early guilty pleas. The applicant received 25% credit on the section 18 because he pleaded guilty; the attempted murder attracted no credit because it was contested at trial.
  • Out-of-time appeals and the single judge filter: If an appeal is significantly late, the appellant needs an extension of time. The single judge initially screens applications. A renewed application may be made to the full court, but both timeliness and the merits are scrutinised.

Conclusion

R v Budea is a forceful reaffirmation of core sentencing principles in serious violence cases. It clarifies that where a bystander bravely intervenes to stop an attempted murder and is then attacked, that secondary offence is distinct and ordinarily warrants a consecutive sentence, with enhanced seriousness. The decision also exemplifies calibrated application of the totality principle—reducing individual components to a proportionate whole without erasing distinct criminality.

On dangerousness, the Court underscores that EDS may be necessary despite a low risk of reconviction where the risk, if realised, involves serious harm. Finally, the case illustrates that substantial out-of-time appeals will not be entertained where there is no arguable error: the judge’s meticulous categorisation, the reasoned choice of consecutive terms, the careful totality reduction, and the public-protection rationale for EDS rendered the sentence unassailable.

The overarching message is clear: violent knife attacks—especially those targeting “Good Samaritan” interveners—will attract severe, distinct, and protective sentencing responses, combining consecutive terms, totality calibration, and extended supervision where the statutory dangerousness threshold is met.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Comments