Lindfield, R, v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a sentencing decision made by the Crown Court at Norwich. The Appellant pleaded guilty on 16 January 2024 to an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. A second count of intentional strangulation was ordered to lie on the file. On 27 February 2024, the Appellant was sentenced by HHJ Shaw to an extended sentence of 5 years, consisting of a 3-year custodial term and a 2-year extended licence period. A victim surcharge and a restraining order were also imposed.

The offending occurred on 9 December 2023 when the Appellant assaulted the Complainant at a friend's flat. The Complainant contacted a support worker, who then involved the police. The Complainant suffered serious injuries including a fractured eye socket and broken nose. The Appellant was arrested and interviewed, denying responsibility for the injuries. The sentencing judge had before him a victim personal statement, medical evidence, photographs, and a pre-sentence report assessing the Appellant as a high risk of serious harm and domestic abuse offending behaviour.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the custodial element of the extended sentence (3 years) was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the offending was correctly categorised as a borderline category 1/2 offence under the Definitive Guideline for section 20 offences.
3. Whether the offending should have been categorised as a category 3 offence instead.
4. Whether the correct sentence, after credit for the guilty plea, should have been approximately 27 months' imprisonment.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The 3-year custodial term was manifestly excessive.
• The judge erred in categorising the offence as borderline category 1/2; it should have been category 3.
• The appropriate starting point for category 3 offences is 2 years, with a range of 1 to 3 years.
• With a 25% reduction for the guilty plea, the sentence should have been about 27 months.
• The appellant relied on precedent emphasizing that section 20 offences require "really serious injury" and that "grave injury" is intrinsic to the offence.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The judge was entitled to categorise the offence within category 2 harm and to adjust the notional sentence upwards due to aggravating factors.
• The injuries sustained by the victim were sufficiently grave, both physically and psychologically, to support the categorisation.
• The judge’s approach to sentencing was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the victim, including a bleeding open wound, multiple fractures to the eye socket and nose, ongoing symptoms such as blurred vision and sore throat, and psychological impacts such as isolation and displacement from her home. The court agreed with the sentencing judge that these injuries constituted a "grave injury" falling within category 2 harm under the Definitive Guideline for section 20 offences.

The court noted the aggravating factors including the appellant's previous convictions, the domestic context of the offence, abuse of power, and intoxication. These justified an upward adjustment of the notional sentence to 4 years before credit for the guilty plea. Applying a 25% reduction for the plea resulted in a 3-year custodial term, which the court found was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the offence should have been categorised as category 3, emphasizing that the injuries and their impact clearly placed the case within category 2. The assessment of dangerousness and the extended sentence were unchallenged and accepted.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the sentencing judge’s categorisation of the offence and the length of the custodial term. The decision confirms the application of the Definitive Guideline categories in assessing harm for section 20 offences and affirms the appropriateness of extended sentences where the offender poses a high risk of serious harm. No new precedent was established; the ruling primarily affects the parties by affirming the original sentence.