Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, aged 27, had a troubled relationship with a woman referred to as the Victim since 2016, with two children from the relationship. The relationship ended in April 2020. The Appellant was previously convicted of assaulting the Victim in 2016 and 2019. On 4 May 2020, following an argument at the Victim's flat, the Appellant pushed her causing her to fall and sustain facial injuries including a nasal fracture. The police found the Appellant hiding under a bed with a superficial head wound later that day. Subsequently, the Appellant sent emails attempting to intimidate the Victim into changing her police statement by falsely alleging an attack by a third party. He was arrested for witness intimidation on 1 June 2020.
The Appellant failed to appear in court on several occasions and was eventually tried in absentia for the offence of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm in October 2022, resulting in conviction. He later pleaded guilty to offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, perverting the course of justice, and theft. Sentencing was adjourned multiple times pending reports and assessments, including a dangerousness assessment and a Newton hearing. On 23 February 2024, the Appellant was sentenced to a total of 30 months' imprisonment for multiple offences including attempting to cause grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, perverting the course of justice, and theft.
His Majesty's Solicitor General applied to refer the total sentence as unduly lenient pursuant to section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the total sentence of 30 months' imprisonment imposed on the Appellant was unduly lenient.
- The appropriate categorisation and sentencing guidelines applicable to the offences, particularly the attempt to cause grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
- The necessity and appropriateness of an extended determinate sentence given the risk posed by the Appellant to the public.
- The application of sentencing principles relating to consecutive and concurrent sentences for multiple offences.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Appellant's mental health condition, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), should reduce his culpability significantly for the assault on the victim of grievous bodily harm.
- The sentence imposed was merciful and lenient, reflecting the experienced judge's assessment who conducted the trial.
Prosecution's Arguments
- The offence of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm involved high culpability due to the prolonged nature of the assault and involvement of strangulation.
- The sentencing judge applied the wrong guideline for the attempt to cause grievous bodily harm, underestimating the seriousness of the offence.
- The offence of perverting the course of justice was more serious than acknowledged and warranted a consecutive sentence under the applicable guideline.
- The overall sentence was unduly lenient and should be increased significantly to reflect the severity of the offences and the risk posed by the Appellant.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41 |
Definition of an unduly lenient sentence as one falling outside the reasonable range of appropriate sentences. |
The court applied this formulation to determine that the sentence was unduly lenient because the judge did not consider all relevant factors. |
| Laverick [2015] EWCA Crim 1059 |
Sentencing approach for attempts to cause really serious harm: sentence for completed offence discounted for attempt. |
The court relied on this precedent to establish the correct approach for sentencing the attempt to cause grievous bodily harm offence. |
| Muthuraja [2019] EWCA Crim 1740 |
Clarification of sentencing for attempted serious offences, emphasizing the discount for the attempt versus completed offence. |
Used to affirm the correct sentencing guideline application for the offence of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court found that the sentencing judge erred in multiple respects. Firstly, the judge applied the wrong sentencing guideline for the attempt to cause grievous bodily harm, using the guideline for section 20 offences rather than the more serious section 18 offences. The court emphasized that the correct approach, as outlined in Laverick and Muthuraja, requires considering the sentence for the completed offence and then applying a modest discount for the attempt.
The court rejected the argument that the Appellant's PTSD significantly reduced culpability, concluding that the prolonged and violent nature of the assault on the victim of grievous bodily harm was incompatible with diminished culpability. The harm was categorized as high, and aggravating factors included previous convictions, offending while on bail, the public place setting, and racial hostility.
Secondly, the judge erred in categorizing the assault occasioning actual bodily harm as more serious than warranted by the facts, which involved a brief assault in reaction to being struck with a lamp. The court re-categorized this offence to Category 2C, with an appropriate sentence at or slightly above the category range due to aggravating factors including domestic context and previous convictions.
Thirdly, the judge understated the seriousness of the perverting the course of justice offence, being misled by counsel and not applying the relevant Sentencing Council guideline effective from October 2023. The court held this offence to be at least Category 2B and deserving of a consecutive sentence.
The court also considered the risk posed by the Appellant, noting his history of violent offending and escalation in seriousness, concluding that an extended determinate sentence was necessary to protect the public. The court found that the sentencing judge failed to address dangerousness due to the total sentence being under four years, whereas the correct sentence would exceed that threshold.
Holding and Implications
The court granted leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient and QUASHED the sentences imposed for all offences except the offence of theft.
The court imposed an extended determinate sentence of nine years in total for the offence of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm, comprising six years' custodial term plus three years extended licence. Concurrent sentences of nine months and twelve months were imposed for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and perverting the course of justice respectively, reflecting the guilty pleas and running concurrently with the extended sentence.
The sentence for theft remained unaffected. The Appellant was ordered to surrender to a designated police station, and the time served prior to sentence was directed to count towards the sentence.
The decision's direct effect is to significantly increase the custodial sentence to reflect the gravity of the offences and the risk posed by the Appellant. No new legal precedent was established, but the ruling reinforces the correct application of sentencing guidelines and the importance of considering dangerousness in appropriate cases.