Wood, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a man aged 30, pleaded guilty at various stages to multiple offences across two separate indictments and matters committed for sentence. The sentencing was conducted by a Recorder in the Crown Court at Canterbury on 27th January 2022. The total sentence recorded was nine years and four months' imprisonment, alongside a driving disqualification until passing an extended test.

The offences involved included attempting to cause grievous bodily harm on two victims during a violent incident at an address in Margate, possession and intent to supply controlled drugs, possession of offensive weapons, assault on an emergency worker, obstructing a constable, failure to surrender, and driving offences including driving without a licence and without insurance.

The Appellant had a significant criminal history with 12 convictions for 18 offences dating back to 2005, including burglary, theft, low-level violence, drug offences, and driving offences. At the time of the offences, the Appellant was often on bail or subject to community orders and was dependent on drugs, though he had made efforts to address his addiction while in prison.

The sentencing process involved the Recorder applying relevant Sentencing Council guidelines, categorising the offences appropriately, and considering the totality principle in arriving at a final overall sentence. However, discrepancies arose between the sentences pronounced in open court and those recorded on the court record, leading to difficulties addressed on appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the administrative adjustments to individual sentences on the court record, made to reflect a global discount for totality, were lawful given the requirement to pronounce final sentences in open court.
2. Whether the overall sentence imposed was excessive, particularly concerning the consecutive sentences for the two counts of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm.
3. Whether the Recorder erred in imposing a driving disqualification order when the Appellant was already subject to such an order.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The overall sentence was excessive, particularly the imposition of consecutive sentences for the two counts of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm, which arose from a single incident and should have been concurrent with appropriate adjustment for multiple victims.
• The Appellant challenged the Recorder's finding that he played a significant role in the drug offences, suggesting a lesser role influenced by suppliers and motivated by his drug habit.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The court found no error in the Recorder's evaluation of the Appellant's role in the drug offences.
• The court acknowledged that concurrent sentences might have been orthodox for the grievous bodily harm offences but did not find the Recorder legally precluded from imposing consecutive sentences.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified that the Recorder had pronounced specific sentences on individual counts in open court, but the recorded sentences on the court record were administratively reduced to reflect a global discount of 80% of the aggregate sentence, as per totality principles. This administrative adjustment was not made in open court and was inconsistent with the requirement that final sentences be pronounced publicly, rendering the procedure illegitimate.

Despite this procedural defect, the court considered the substantive sentencing issues. It acknowledged that the Recorder's starting points for the offences were high, especially for the attempted grievous bodily harm counts, which were less serious than substantive offences. The court also accepted the Appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences, but found the overall sentence excessive.

Applying totality and proportionality principles, the court substituted sentences on the grievous bodily harm counts to five years and six months each, to run concurrently, reflecting a more appropriate overall sentence. The other sentences for lesser offences and drug offences were upheld as recorded.

Regarding the driving disqualification, the court found that the Recorder erred in imposing a further disqualification when the Appellant was already subject to such an order, rendering the new disqualification order invalid under section 36(7) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Instead, the court ordered penalty points to be endorsed on the Appellant's driving record for the relevant offences.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART by substituting the sentences on the two counts of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with concurrent terms of five years and six months' imprisonment each, reducing the overall sentence to eight years and four months' imprisonment.

The sentences on other counts, including drug offences and lesser matters, were upheld as recorded. The driving disqualification order imposed by the Recorder was quashed, and penalty points were ordered to be added to the Appellant's driving record instead.

This decision corrects procedural irregularities in sentencing and ensures compliance with the requirement to pronounce sentences in open court. It also adjusts the total sentence to a proportionate level without setting new legal precedent beyond these specific circumstances.