Gribben, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was sentenced on 25 March 2022 by His Honour Judge Miller KC to three years' imprisonment, split equally between custody and licence, for one count of wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. A Violent Offences Prevention Order (VOPO) for five years was also imposed, but no appeal was mounted against that order. The Applicant sought leave to appeal the sentence on the sole ground that it was manifestly excessive, with an ancillary argument concerning the balance between custody and licence.

The incident occurred on 19 November 2019 when the Applicant and the injured party, a male acquaintance, went to a bar and subsequently to a friend’s house. An altercation ensued in which the Applicant headbutted the injured party who was seated, causing him to fall. While on the floor, the Applicant smashed a bottle over the injured party’s head, causing serious injuries requiring 13 staples and resulting in mental health effects as detailed in a victim impact statement.

Procedurally, the Applicant was initially committed for trial and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution indicated acceptance of a plea to the section 20 offence in January 2021, but the Applicant did not plead guilty until nearly a year later in January 2022. There were evidential difficulties including the death of a potential witness and difficulties engaging another, leading to anticipated hearsay applications. The Applicant sought a Rooney hearing early on, and the trial judge indicated a starting point of four years’ imprisonment with a one-third reduction for an early plea, later adjusted to a 25% reduction at sentencing.

The sentencing judge had before him a pre-sentence report describing the Applicant as a 28-year-old single man with five children, currently homeless, with alcohol addiction and anger management problems, and 14 previous convictions, mostly violent. The report assessed a high likelihood of reoffending and supported the VOPO. The judge noted aggravating features including the use of glass as a weapon, the violence involved, and the Applicant’s violent history. The suspended sentences in place at the time were not activated, reflecting a totality consideration.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of three years' imprisonment for the section 20 wounding offence was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the court should reconsider the balance between the custodial term and the licence period in the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the offence and the Applicant’s personal circumstances.
• The balance between custody and licence should be recalibrated from an equal split to one year imprisonment and two years licence, to better reflect the Applicant’s situation.
• Relied on R v Wilson [2021] NICA 38 to argue sentencing principles for glassing offences, suggesting the sentence should reflect mitigating factors.

Respondent's Arguments

• The sentence was appropriate given the serious aggravating factors including the use of glass as a weapon and the Applicant’s violent history.
• The 25% reduction for the plea was correctly applied in light of the timing and circumstances of the guilty plea.
• The balance between custody and licence complied with statutory requirements and was supported by the probation report, which indicated a high risk of reoffending and did not justify a longer licence period.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the facts of the offence, including the violent nature of the attack involving multiple blows and the use of a glass bottle as a weapon. The Applicant’s prior convictions for violent offences and the probation report indicating a high risk of reoffending were significant aggravating factors. The court accepted the sentencing judge’s starting point of four years before reduction for the guilty plea, noting the reduction was appropriately adjusted from one-third to 25% due to the timing of the plea.

The court emphasized that glassing offences are severely condemned and attract custodial sentences, referencing R v Wilson. The court distinguished the present case from Wilson, noting the Applicant’s less favourable circumstances and previous convictions. The maximum sentence of seven years was acknowledged, and the court found the three-year sentence proportionate, not manifestly excessive, and free from error in principle.

Regarding the ancillary argument on the balance between custody and licence, the court applied statutory provisions under Article 8 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and relevant case law. It found no evidence that the licence period should be extended beyond half the sentence, as there was no indication of specific rehabilitative courses or supervision requirements justifying a longer licence. The probation report’s negative assessment and lack of supporting evidence led the court to reject recalibration of the sentence balance.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to appeal on the ancillary point concerning the balance of custody and licence but ultimately dismissed the appeal.

The direct effect is that the original sentence of three years' imprisonment, split equally between custody and licence, stands. The Violent Offences Prevention Order remains in place for five years. No new legal precedent was established by this decision. The ruling underscores the courts’ firm stance on glassing offences and affirms the application of statutory tests in sentencing balance decisions.