Forbes, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 37, was sentenced on 10 May 2024 in the Crown Court at St. Albans to a total of 24 months' imprisonment following guilty pleas to multiple offences including assault on an emergency worker, going equipped for theft, possession of bladed articles in a public place, and possession of class B drugs. The offences occurred in Welwyn Garden City in the early hours of 17 November 2023. The Appellant was observed riding a bicycle equipped with two kitchen knives, various tools, and cannabis. Police officers conducting an undercover operation noticed suspicious activity linked to thefts from cars. When officers attempted to detain the Appellant, he resisted violently, including crashing his bicycle into an officer’s legs and using PAVA spray against the officer. Upon arrest, the prohibited items were found on his person and bicycle.

The Appellant was indicted on six counts, including use of a firearm to resist arrest, common assault on an emergency worker, going equipped for theft, two counts of possession of bladed articles, and possession of class B drugs. The first count was dismissed as legally unsustainable. The Appellant pleaded guilty to the remaining counts. The sentencing judge applied a 25% reduction for early guilty pleas and imposed consecutive and concurrent sentences totaling 24 months. The Appellant appealed against the sentence on grounds of manifest excessiveness and alleged errors in guideline application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge misapplied the relevant sentencing guidelines for the assault on an emergency worker, including the extent of the uplift applied.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the guideline for the offence of going equipped for theft, specifically regarding the assessment of culpability.
3. Whether the bladed article offences were correctly categorised under the sentencing guidelines.
4. Whether the sentencing judge failed properly to apply the principle of totality in sentencing.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing uplift for the assault on an emergency worker was excessive, amounting to over 400%, and disproportionate compared to similar cases cited.
• The judge misapplied the going equipped guideline by treating the offence as involving high culpability linked to domestic burglary, which was not charged or admitted.
• The bladed article offences were mis-categorised, with the risk of serious disorder not properly established given the circumstances.
• The judge failed to properly apply the totality principle in aggregating sentences.
• Mitigating factors such as the Appellant’s drug addiction and excessive use of force to resist unlawful detention were insufficiently considered.

Court's Considerations on Arguments

• The judge’s assessment of the assault offence category and positioning within the guideline was correct; the appeal focused on the uplift applied, which was found to be within the reasonable discretion of the judge.
• The prosecution’s argument regarding high culpability for domestic burglary was rejected as illegitimate because the pleaded offence was going equipped for theft from cars.
• The bladed article offences were correctly placed in Category A1 due to the real risk of serious alarm or distress posed by the knives, one of which was displayed on the bicycle.
• The totality principle was properly applied, with concurrent sentences where appropriate and a justified structure maintained.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing guidelines step-by-step. For the assault on an emergency worker, the judge correctly identified the offence category and positioned the offending within the guideline range. The critical question was the uplift applied to reflect the victim’s status as an emergency worker. The court emphasized that the statutory maximum sentence for the offence against an emergency worker is significantly higher than for common assault, justifying a substantial uplift. The judge’s decision on uplift was a proportional and reasonable exercise of discretion and not an error of principle.

Regarding the going equipped offence, the court found the prosecution’s argument that the Appellant had high culpability for domestic burglary to be unfounded because the pleaded offence related specifically to theft from vehicles. The appropriate categorisation was medium culpability with greater harm due to the number of potential victims. The court reduced the sentence accordingly.

In relation to the bladed article offences, the court considered the judge’s categorisation in harm Category 1 justified by the risk of serious alarm or distress, given the nature of the knives and the circumstances of possession. The court rejected the argument that this risk was overstated, affirming the judge’s conclusion as sound.

The court found no error in the application of the totality principle. The sentencing structure, including concurrent and consecutive sentences, was appropriate and maintained the overall proportionality of the sentence.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the appeal in part by quashing the sentence of nine months' imprisonment concurrent on the going equipped count and substituting a sentence of five months concurrent. To that extent, the appeal was allowed. The other sentences imposed below were unaffected, and the total effective sentence remained 24 months' imprisonment.

The decision directly affects the sentence on the going equipped offence by reducing it but upholds the overall custodial sentence. No new precedent was established; the court reaffirmed the proper exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing and clarified the limits of guideline application to the facts of this case.