Richards, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 27 October 2023 in the Crown Court at Croydon, the Defendant was convicted of one offence of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. On 27 March 2024, he was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with requirements including 250 hours of unpaid work, 38 days rehabilitation activity, and a five-year restraining order.

The Defendant, aged 59, lived on the first floor of a small block of flats in Croydon, with the Appellant residing beneath him. The two had been neighbours for about eight years but had a hostile relationship. The Defendant had accused the Appellant of antisocial behaviour and had installed a CCTV camera to monitor the Appellant. The Appellant had previously assaulted the Defendant with a garden hoe and his dog had bitten the Defendant; the Appellant was charged and convicted for those incidents.

In April 2021, the Defendant was on bail for an allegation of common assault on the Appellant, of which he was later acquitted. On 29 April 2021, the Defendant observed via CCTV the Appellant damaging plants in the communal garden. The Defendant went downstairs carrying garden tools and shears, approached the Appellant's front door, and swung the shears twice, striking the Appellant on the head and arm. The Appellant retreated indoors and called an ambulance. The Defendant called the police and was arrested, claiming self-defence.

The Appellant sustained a significant six centimetre laceration requiring sutures. Medical evidence showed no loss of consciousness initially; a week later, the Appellant reported headaches and vomiting, diagnosed as post-concussion headache. After the trial, the Appellant made a victim personal statement alleging ongoing symptoms and stress-related cancer recurrence, but no medical evidence supported these claims.

The Defendant was charged on 13 July 2021 and pleaded not guilty at the first Crown Court hearing in September 2021. The trial was delayed twice due to lack of defence counsel and finally occurred in October 2023. Sentencing was further delayed until March 2024 due to the unavailability of a pre-sentence report.

The Defendant had a distant criminal record from 1982 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and theft but no convictions since. He had been regularly employed until 2019 when back problems forced him to stay at home, increasing contact with the Appellant and contributing to their disputes.

The sentencing judge found the offence to be of medium culpability with a weapon used, harm classified as Category 3, and some lesser culpability due to excessive self-defence. The judge identified mitigating factors including the Defendant's lack of recent convictions and the history of abuse by the Appellant. The judge imposed a 24-month custodial sentence suspended for 24 months, considering it the least possible sentence justified.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the Defendant was unduly lenient within the meaning of section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
2. How to properly categorise the offence in terms of culpability and harm under the Sentencing Council Guidelines.
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in suspending the custodial sentence and in her application of mitigating and aggravating factors.
4. Whether the sentencing judge engaged in impermissible double-counting of mitigating factors.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The case fell squarely into Category 3B for harm and culpability.
• The Defendant deliberately placed himself in a position where confrontation was possible, negating an element of self-defence for culpability reduction.
• Considering self-defence and history of abuse as mitigating factors post-categorisation amounted to double-counting.
• The judge failed to adequately explain how she arrived at the 24-month suspended sentence from the guideline starting point of four years.
• The sentence was too lenient and should have been custodial without suspension, referencing the Imposition Guideline.

Defendant's Counsel's Arguments

• No double-counting occurred as self-defence and history of abuse were considered as mitigating factors, not for culpability adjustment.
• The judge did not adjust the starting point for culpability based on these factors, indicating separate consideration.
• The positive pre-sentence report indicated rehabilitation was realistic.
• The judge was made aware of relevant case law (Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232) regarding suspension and prison population.
• While the sentence was lenient, it was reasonably open to the judge given the circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Attorney General Reference No 4 of 1989 [1991] WLR 41	Test for unduly lenient sentence: whether the sentence falls outside the range reasonably open to a judge considering all relevant factors.	The court applied this test to determine that the sentence, though lenient, was within the range open to a reasonable judge and thus not unduly lenient.
Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232	Consideration of prison population and rehabilitation prospects when deciding whether a custodial sentence can be suspended.	The court noted the judge was made aware of this precedent and considered rehabilitation prospects, supporting the reasonableness of suspending the sentence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing judge's application of the Sentencing Council Guidelines, focusing on harm and culpability categorisation. The offence was correctly categorised as Category 3 harm with medium culpability (Category B) due to the use of a weapon. The judge acknowledged elements of lesser culpability related to excessive self-defence, which justified adjusting the starting point downwards from four years to approximately three years before mitigating and aggravating factors.

The court accepted that the judge did not clearly explain her reasoning but found no error in principle. The aggravating factor was the offence being committed while on bail; mitigating factors included the Defendant's good character, lack of recent convictions, delay in proceedings, absence of further offending, and positive pre-sentence report. The judge's overall reduction to a two-year sentence was within a reasonable range.

Regarding suspension of the sentence, the judge did not explicitly refer to the Imposition Guideline but considered mitigating factors sufficient to justify suspension. The court acknowledged general principles that use of a weapon with intent to cause serious harm often requires immediate custody, but found this case unusual due to the Defendant's background and circumstances. Thus, suspending the sentence was not unreasonable.

The court applied the established test for unduly lenient sentences and concluded that although the sentence was lenient, it was not unduly so. The judge's findings and weight assigned to factors fell within the range reasonably available to a sentencing judge.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE to refer the sentence as unduly lenient.

The direct effect is that the Defendant's suspended sentence of 24 months stands with the attached requirements and restraining order. No new precedent was established, and the decision confirms the application of sentencing guidelines with flexibility, emphasizing the importance of considering individual circumstances and mitigating factors in sentencing decisions.