REGINA v McDermott

Factual and Procedural Background

On 19th January 2006, before Magistrates, the Appellant pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was committed for sentence to the Crown Court. On 10th February 2006, at the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant was sentenced to one year and three months' imprisonment for the offence, less one day for time spent in custody on remand. The Appellant appeals against that sentence by leave of the Single Judge.

The facts are that, around 10 p.m. on 9th December 2005, the complainant, an ambulance man, and a colleague responded to a report of a man lying on the ground. The Appellant was lying on the pavement outside a public house and became verbally abusive as the ambulance team approached. Despite this, they assisted him to the ambulance and seated him on the step. The police had been summoned but had not arrived. When the colleague went to contact police control, the Appellant stood, approached the complainant, and punched him in the head. The complainant grappled with the Appellant, and together with his colleague, subdued him until the police arrived and arrested him. The Appellant admitted to consuming large quantities of alcohol and claimed no memory of the offence. The complainant sustained a ruptured eardrum, was prohibited from driving for six weeks, and was off work for one week.

The Appellant, born 24th March 1969, had six previous court appearances for seven offences between May 1987 and January 2006, including prior convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, criminal damage, driving with excess alcohol, assault on a constable, and failing to surrender for bail. The sentencing judge described the Appellant as having a proven violent streak, especially when intoxicated. Notably, in 2000 and 2004, the Appellant was convicted of assaults involving unlawful violence to others, including assaulting a custodial officer and his estranged wife.

A pre-sentence report indicated the offence fit a pattern of alcohol-related violence. The Appellant had previously downplayed his alcohol problem but admitted its seriousness and expressed remorse, viewing the offence as a wake-up call. He had made efforts to address his drinking with the support of a new partner. The Appellant was unemployed, having lost his last job due to failing a random alcohol test. Despite gaps in offending, recent offences showed increased seriousness, and he continued to pose a risk when drinking.

Additional documents included a character reference highlighting the Appellant's attempts and success in solving his problems and a note about his contact with the Drug and Alcohol Unit. The sentencing judge emphasized the seriousness of the offence, noting the injury to the complainant and the need to protect ambulance personnel through severe sentences. The judge considered the Appellant's remorse, plea, age, antecedents, pre-sentence report, and efforts to address alcohol issues, concluding the Appellant was not a dangerous offender.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of one year and three months' imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was excessive.
2. The applicability and proper weight of the precedent set in R v McNally [2000] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 535 to the present case.
3. The appropriate sentencing approach for assaults on ambulance personnel, considering aggravating and mitigating factors.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Insufficient attention was paid by the sentencing court to the precedent in R v McNally, where a 12-month sentence was reduced to six months for assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a doctor.
• The Appellant’s case differs from McNally but the sentence was disproportionately longer—two-and-a-half times greater.
• Unlike McNally, the Appellant does not have good character; however, the mitigating factors here include an early guilty plea, genuine remorse, and efforts to address alcohol problems.
• The injury inflicted was less serious than in McNally, and none of the aggravating factors identified in McNally (such as repeated blows or use of weapons) were present.
• Overall, although a severe sentence is warranted, the sentence imposed was excessive in all the circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the seriousness with which offences against ambulance personnel must be treated and accepted the sentencing judge’s view that immediate custody is generally appropriate in such cases. The court analyzed the McNally precedent, recognizing that while it establishes that assaults on medical staff often warrant custodial sentences, the length depends on the facts of each case, including aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court distinguished the Appellant’s case from McNally, noting the Appellant’s significant history of violent offences, many alcohol-related, and the absence of mitigating personal circumstances present in McNally. The court emphasized that alcohol consumption is an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one. Although the Appellant expressed remorse and made efforts to control his drinking, these factors did not warrant reducing the sentence.

Ultimately, the court found the sentence of fifteen months (one year and three months minus one day) appropriate and not excessive, given the totality of circumstances, including the need to protect public servants and punish the offender.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against sentence.

The decision confirms that assaults on ambulance personnel are serious offences warranting custodial sentences, especially where the offender has a history of violent behaviour aggravated by alcohol. While precedent such as R v McNally provides guidance, sentencing must be individualized based on the offender’s antecedents and the facts of the case. The ruling does not establish new precedent but reinforces the principle that alcohol-related violence against public servants attracts severe sentences.