Bannergee, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 36, pleaded guilty on 20 December 2019 to assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The offence occurred at approximately 5:00 a.m. on 14 October 2018 in the complainant's flat located in The City. The Appellant had initially been refused entry but returned armed with a knife, forced his way into the kitchen, and assaulted the complainant by striking him on the forehead with the knife. The injury was treated in hospital with four stitches required. The Appellant was sentenced on 6 February 2020 to 16 months imprisonment, a victim surcharge, and an order for the forfeiture and destruction of the knife. The Appellant appealed the sentence with limited leave granted, contesting only the adequacy of the credit given for his guilty plea.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in awarding only a 15% discount for the Appellant’s guilty plea instead of a 25% discount.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH), he faced more serious charges (section 18 and section 20 offences) and lacked medical evidence, which prevented him from pleading guilty earlier.
• He argued that only after receiving medical evidence confirming the injury was superficial could he properly plead guilty to the lesser offence under section 47, entitling him to a 25% discount for his plea.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The court noted the Appellant understood the nature of the charges but delayed pleading guilty despite a lesser alternative offence being available.
• The Appellant never unequivocally indicated a plea to the lesser offence until late in the proceedings.
• The late plea did not fall within exceptions allowing a higher discount under the Sentencing Council Guideline.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the Sentencing Council Guideline on reduction in sentence for guilty plea, which sets a maximum discount of one third if the plea is entered at the earliest stage, decreasing to one tenth if entered on the first day of trial. The court examined exceptions allowing up to one third discount despite a late plea, such as where a defendant could not reasonably be expected to plead earlier due to lack of information or advice.

The court found that the Appellant was aware of the charges and the nature of the assault but failed to provide an unequivocal indication of a plea to the lesser offence under section 47 until late in the proceedings. The delay was not justified by inability to understand the charges but by a tactical decision to assess the strength of prosecution evidence. Therefore, the Appellant did not qualify for the exceptions permitting a higher discount.

The sentencing judge's application of a 15% discount was appropriate given the timing of the plea, and in fact, the judge awarded a slightly higher effective discount of 20% when reducing the sentence from 20 to 16 months. The court rejected the argument that a 25% discount was warranted and upheld the sentence as neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is REFUSED.

The court affirmed the original sentence of 16 months imprisonment with a 20% discount for the late guilty plea. The decision confirms the strict application of the Sentencing Council Guideline on plea discounts, emphasizing that defendants must enter or indicate guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity unless exceptional circumstances exist. No new precedent was established; the ruling reinforces existing principles regarding plea discounts and sentencing for offences involving assault with a weapon.