Introduction

This commentary examines the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision in R v Wilson [2025] EWCA Crim 1286, a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge. The appeal centred on two core issues: (i) whether the trial judge was wrong to impose an extended determinate sentence (EDS) under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for a section 18 wounding in a domestic setting; and (ii) whether the overall custodial term (eight years on the lead count) was manifestly excessive.

The case arises from a sustained and violent incident perpetrated by the applicant against his ex-partner, Macey Gregory, and her guest, Jay Harvey, in July 2023, within a broader history of domestic abuse and controlling conduct. The trial judge imposed an EDS comprising an eight-year custodial term with a four-year extended licence, plus concurrent sentences on related counts and a ten-year restraining order. The Court of Appeal refused the renewed application for leave, upholding both the imposition of the EDS and the length of the custodial term.

While the Court did not purport to create a new rule, the judgment clarifies two important points of practice: (1) risk that is targeted at a narrow class of individuals (here, the ex-partner and any male who became close to her) can satisfy the “public protection” test for an EDS; and (2) the fortuity that injuries were less serious (category 3 harm) does not preclude a finding of dangerousness and the imposition of a protective extended licence where culpability is high and the pattern of behaviour indicates significant risk of serious harm.

Case Background

• Applicant: a 26-year-old man with relevant previous convictions including a 2016 section 20 GBH and multiple domestic-context offences against Ms Gregory between 2019 and 2020.
• Relationship context: on-off relationship with Ms Gregory, with two young children; jealousy and controlling behaviour were noted features.
• Offending sequence:
  • 2 April 2023 (count 4): criminal damage to Ms Gregory’s phone and door during an argument, value exceeding £1200.
  • 12 May 2023 (count 5 – to which he pleaded guilty): disclosure of sexual images of Ms Gregory to her mother after downloading material from Ms Gregory’s devices.
  • 26 July 2023:
    • Count 7: threatening with a knife after entering the flat via the balcony; two children were asleep in the home.
    • Count 8: wounding with intent (s18) – slashing and stabbing Mr Harvey; heavy bleeding, injuries fortunately less grave than feared.
    • Count 10: assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s47) – repeated punching and kicking of Ms Gregory, leaving multiple injuries including a black eye and chipped tooth.
• Trial outcome: convictions on counts 4, 7, 8, 10 after trial; guilty plea on count 5; acquittals on other counts.

Sentence at First Instance

The trial judge treated the section 18 wounding (count 8) as the lead offence and reflected overall criminality in that count. She imposed an extended determinate sentence under section 279 Sentencing Act 2020: eight years’ custody plus four years’ extended licence. Concurrent determinate sentences were imposed for the other counts (one month for criminal damage; 18 months for threatening with an offensive weapon; 2 years 6 months for the s47; and three months for the disclosure offence). A 10-year restraining order also issued.

On the section 18 count, the judge found high culpability due to the use of a highly dangerous weapon and significant premeditation; harm was category 3 because the actual injuries, though serious, were less grave than they might have been. The starting point under the applicable guideline was identified as five years’ custody (range four to seven), but the judge assessed aggravating features (relevant previous convictions and the domestic context) and, applying totality, set eight years on the lead count to capture the overall criminality of all counts.

Grounds of Appeal and Procedural Note

The appellant initially sought to challenge both the custodial length and the imposition of the EDS. A procedural miscommunication suggested the renewed application might have been limited to the EDS only, but the Court proceeded on the basis that both elements were in issue. He ultimately did not argue that an EDS was wrong in principle but focused on its length and on the eight-year custodial term being excessive, and on the judge’s attribution of high culpability on counts 8 and 10.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal refused the renewed application for leave to appeal the sentence. It held that:

• The sentencing judge was entitled to find high culpability on the section 18 and section 47 offences, given the use of a knife, premeditation, and the domestic setting with children present.
• Dangerousness was properly established on the evidence of the index offending and the previous pattern of violence, including a prior section 20 GBH and recurrent domestic incidents against Ms Gregory.
• An extended determinate sentence was necessary for public protection; a determinate sentence would not provide adequate protection.
• The four-year extension period was proportionate to the risk profile, particularly the likelihood of renewed conflict in the domestic sphere upon release, warranting extended supervision.
• The eight-year custodial term (reflecting totality across all counts) was within the judge’s discretion and not manifestly excessive.

Detailed Analysis

Statutory and Guideline Framework Applied

• Extended Determinate Sentence: Section 279 Sentencing Act 2020 empowers the court to impose an EDS for specified violent or sexual offences where:
  • the offender is dangerous (significant risk to members of the public of serious harm from further specified offences); and
  • the appropriate custodial term is at least four years (among other gateway conditions).
  The extension period is designed to protect the public by prolonged supervision after release. For violent offences, the extension period cannot exceed five years. The Court affirmed that these protective aims squarely applied here.
• Offence-specific guidelines:
  • Section 18 (GBH with intent): High culpability was found based on the use of a highly dangerous weapon and premeditation; harm was category 3 because the physical injuries—while heavily bleeding and potentially much worse—were less grave than they could have been. The judge took a five-year starting point (range four to seven) and, applying aggravation and totality, reached eight years’ custody on the lead count.
  • Section 47 (ABH): High culpability due to premeditation and vulnerability (night-time assault in the victim’s home with children present; prior history of violence), and category 2 harm, yielding a guideline starting point of 18 months (range up to 2.5 years). The concurrent sentence of 2 years 6 months was within range.
  • Other counts (criminal damage; threatening with a knife; disclosure of sexual images) were assessed under their respective guidelines and ordered to run concurrently, their seriousness being reflected “in the round” in the lead count’s term.
• Totality: The judge properly reflected the overall criminality in the lead count rather than structuring multiple consecutive terms, aligning with the principle of totality.

Precedents and Authorities

No specific appellate authorities were cited in the judgment text. Nonetheless, the Court’s approach is consistent with established principles governing findings of dangerousness and the imposition of extended sentences under the current statutory scheme (now consolidated in the Sentencing Act 2020). The judgment reflects the orthodox position that:

• “Members of the public” for the dangerousness test includes a limited sub-set of the public (for example, a current or former partner and those closely associated with them). The Court explicitly accepted that risk targeted at Ms Gregory and any male close to her sufficed.
• The assessment of dangerousness and the necessity of an EDS is a fact-sensitive exercise, giving particular deference to the sentencing judge’s vantage point following a trial.
• The extension period must be proportionate to the risk and aimed at protecting the public via supervision and licence conditions after release.

While not referred to in this judgment, the reasoning aligns with well-known appellate guidance on dangerousness and extended sentences: that the significant risk of serious harm can be established by the nature and circumstances of the index offence(s), supported by antecedents; and that the extension period should be the minimum necessary for public protection and risk management on licence.

Legal Reasoning in the Court’s Decision

The Court endorsed the trial judge’s reasoning on several fronts:

• High culpability despite category 3 harm: The Court accepted the assessment that the use of a knife, the premeditated entry into the home at night (via a balcony), and the continuation of violence against a second victim (the former partner) justified high culpability. The fortuity that injuries were not more catastrophic did not reduce the seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances created a high-risk situation, especially with children present.
• Dangerousness: The judge’s finding that the applicant was “completely out of control” and that “the physical impact … could have been devastating” was grounded in the facts of the offence and the antecedents. The pattern of domestic violence, breaches of suspended sentences, and a prior section 20 GBH with a broken jaw supported a reasonable conclusion of significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences.
• Public protection for a targeted risk: The Court explicitly accepted that the identified risk—to Ms Gregory and any male close to her—nevertheless constitutes a risk to “members of the public” for the purposes of imposing an EDS. This reaffirms that the statutory test does not require the risk to be diffuse or generalised across the public at large.
• Extension period of four years: The Court upheld this as proportionate, placing weight on the relational dynamics and the likelihood of future trouble upon release. The extension was necessary to provide meaningful supervision to monitor and mitigate risk in a domestic-abuse setting—precisely the type of scenario EDS is designed to address.
• Totality and overall term: The Court accepted the structuring of sentence that folded the seriousness of all counts into the lead offence’s custodial term. An eight-year custodial term was within the range of reasonable responses in light of the aggravating features and the overall criminality.
• Mitigation and post-offence conduct: The applicant’s positive conduct in custody (cooperation, engagement with anger management, response to a fellow prisoner’s medical needs) was acknowledged but did not outweigh the assessed risk profile and the gravity of the offending.

Impact and Practical Significance

This decision is likely to influence sentencing and appeal outcomes in the following ways:

• Domestic context and EDS: It underscores that domestic-violence cases involving weapons and premeditation can justify an EDS even where the actual injuries fall into lower harm categories. The presence of children in the home and a pattern of controlling or violent behaviour heighten the risk assessment.
• Risk to a limited class: It emphasizes that risk confined to a particular subset of the public (e.g., an ex-partner and new partners) is still “public” for dangerousness purposes. This avoids artificial arguments that “private” or “relationship-specific” risk falls outside the statutory conception of public protection.
• Extension-period calibration: The ruling provides a clear example of how courts may calibrate the length of the extension by reference to foreseeable relational volatility and the need for extended supervision to enforce compliance (e.g., with restraining orders, exclusion zones, and rehabilitative requirements).
• Deference to trial judge: Appeals challenging harm categorisation, culpability assessments, and dangerousness findings will face a high bar, especially where the trial judge had full evidential exposure and carefully engaged with Sentencing Council guidelines.
• Totality in multi-count domestic cases: The case exemplifies reflecting aggregate criminality in the lead count rather than stacking consecutive terms—an approach that can produce a higher single custodial term while keeping concurrency on less serious counts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS):
  • A sentence combining: (a) a custodial term for the index offence(s), and (b) an extended licence period after release to manage risk.
  • Imposed where the offender is “dangerous” and convicted of a specified violent or sexual offence, and the custodial term threshold is met.
  • The extension period allows Probation/Parole supervision and licence conditions; for violent offences, the extension can be up to five years.
• Dangerousness:
  • A statutory test assessing whether there is a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public from further specified offences.
  • “Members of the public” includes a particular individual or small group connected to the offender (e.g., an ex-partner).
  • Assessed by looking at the index offence(s), antecedents, patterns of behaviour, and the offender’s presentation.
• Harm and Culpability (Guidelines):
  • Harm considers the injury actually caused (not what might have happened), though “near misses” inform culpability and risk.
  • Culpability is elevated by factors like premeditation, use of weapons, and vulnerability of the victim (e.g., in their home, with children present, within a history of abuse).
• Totality:
  • A principle ensuring the overall sentence is just and proportionate to the total criminality.
  • Courts may reflect the seriousness of multiple offences in a single lead count rather than imposing consecutive terms on each count.
• Extended Licence and Release:
  • An offender serving an EDS is commonly considered for release after two-thirds of the custodial term, with release dependent on Parole Board assessment of risk. If not released then, they may serve the full custodial term before starting the extended licence.
  • Extended licence allows for tailored conditions (e.g., exclusion zones, non-contact conditions, programme requirements) to protect victims and the public.
• Restraining Orders:
  • Separate from the sentence; they impose legally enforceable prohibitions (e.g., contact or proximity limitations) usually for a fixed period.
  • Here, a ten-year restraining order complements the EDS by creating parallel protective boundaries, breach of which is a criminal offence.

Key Observations from the Facts

• Premeditation and escalation: Waiting for the neighbour to leave, entering via the balcony, arming with a knife immediately, and then turning violence onto a second victim shows a level of planning and escalation central to the dangerousness finding.
• Pattern of behaviour: Prior domestic offences, violations under suspended sentences, and a previous GBH conviction indicate resistance to deterrence and underline the risk of serious harm.
• Victim dynamics: The Court acknowledged Ms Gregory’s later request for leniency, recognising a typical pattern in domestic abuse cases where victim attitudes fluctuate; however, protection of the public remains paramount.
• Mitigation in custody: Positive steps in prison were acknowledged but could not displace the need for robust public protection given the risk profile.
• Evidence base: The Court noted it had seen body-worn footage and injury photographs, which reinforced the gravity and risk inherent in the index episode despite the fortuitously limited long-term injury.

Conclusion

R v Wilson confirms the steady approach of the Court of Appeal to dangerousness and extended determinate sentences in domestic-violence cases involving weapons and premeditation. The decision reaffirms that:

• A targeted risk to a small group of individuals—such as an ex-partner and those associated with her—satisfies the “public protection” threshold for an EDS.
• Category 3 harm does not bar an EDS where culpability is high and the wider evidential picture indicates a significant risk of serious harm.
• Extension periods may properly be calibrated to the likely persistence of relational volatility and the need for sustained risk management on licence.
• Appellate deference to the sentencing judge’s assessments of culpability, harm, and risk is pronounced where the judge has heard and seen the evidence first-hand and has applied the guidelines conscientiously.

In short, Wilson is a robust affirmation of the protective function of EDS in the domestic-violence context, signalling that courts will not hesitate to impose extended supervision where the factual matrix demonstrates a significant and continuing risk of serious harm, even where the actual injury on the index occasion was, by good fortune, less severe than it might have been.