Stewart, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal a determinate custodial sentence of 37 months (18.5 months custodial, 18.5 months on licence) imposed by a trial judge at Crown Court on 17 August 2020 in respect of one count of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (AOABH) contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The Defendant pleaded guilty at arraignment on 12 November 2019.

The prosecution case described a volatile on-off domestic relationship between the Defendant and the injured party, involving a history of mutual allegations of assault. On 20 May 2019, during an argument at the injured party's home, the Defendant physically assaulted her, including pushing her, causing her to hit a glass panel, dragging her upstairs by the hair, and strangling her with a fabric item until she lost consciousness. The victim suffered multiple injuries, including bleeding from the eyes, ruptured eardrums, bruising to the neck and arm, and was left emotionally devastated.

The Defendant was arrested and interviewed, denying the extent of the assault and providing an alternative account involving self-defense against a knife threat. The Defendant had a history of previous convictions, including a prior assault against the same victim. A pre-sentence report detailed the Defendant's troubled background, mental health issues, and limited acceptance of responsibility for the offence.

The trial judge rejected the Defendant's account and identified aggravating factors including the domestic nature of the offence, prior violence towards the victim, the assault occurring in the victim's home, and the use of strangulation. The judge set a starting point sentence of 55 months, reduced for the guilty plea and other considerations, resulting in the custodial sentence imposed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting point sentence of 55 months for the offence, particularly considering the aggravating factor of strangulation, was appropriate.
2. Whether the discount for the Defendant’s guilty plea was correctly applied.
3. Whether the COVID-19 pandemic justified an additional discount to the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the appropriateness of the starting point sentence, affirming the trial judge’s 55-month starting point. This was justified by the serious nature of the offence, particularly the use of strangulation, which the court recognized as a significant aggravating factor due to its potential lethality and symbolic assertion of control in domestic abuse cases. The court referenced recent authority explaining the medical and psychological harms of non-fatal strangulation and its relevance to future risk assessment.

The court rejected the appellant’s alternative account and accepted the prosecution’s factual narrative, emphasizing the severity of the injuries and the victim’s loss of consciousness.

Regarding the discount for the guilty plea, the court found the 27% reduction allowed by the trial judge to be appropriate. It noted that the appellant did not admit involvement at interview, which limited the credit due. The court also clarified that the severity of the victim’s injuries should be reflected in the starting point, not reduce the plea discount.

On the issue of COVID-19, the court considered authorities from England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland addressing the pandemic’s impact on sentencing and prison conditions. It acknowledged the challenges posed by the pandemic but concluded that the Northern Ireland Prison Service had taken effective measures to mitigate these. The court rejected the notion of an automatic or additional discount for guilty pleas due to the pandemic but recognized that cooperation during the pandemic might justify some consideration in appropriate cases. Since the appellant pleaded guilty before the pandemic, no such additional discount was warranted.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to appeal but DISMISSED THE APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE.

The direct effect is that the original custodial sentence of 37 months stands. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming the seriousness of strangulation in domestic violence cases and clarifying the approach to plea discounts during the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision underscores the court’s careful balancing of aggravating factors, plea discounts, and external circumstances such as the pandemic without extending discounts beyond established principles.