Bi, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment by Miss Recorder Siddiqi in the Crown Court at Preston on 1 July 2024 for an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The Applicant lived next door to the Complainant, with whom there had been ongoing disputes between their families for several years.

On 12 May 2023, the Complainant was at home when she heard breaking glass and discovered her front window damaged. The Applicant was in her adjoining front garden separated only by a hedge. During an aggressive verbal exchange involving the Applicant's daughter, the Applicant threw a plank of wood over the hedge at the Complainant. The plank struck the Complainant in the eye causing severe injury, including a laceration and an eye socket fracture. The Complainant underwent surgery but was left with complete loss of vision in the injured eye.

The Complainant's Victim Personal Statement described severe ongoing pain, inability to work, loss of hobbies, social isolation, and emotional distress. The Applicant pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing stage, receiving credit for the plea.

At sentencing, the Recorder placed the offence in category B1 of the sentencing guideline, with a starting point of three years' custody and a sentencing range of two to four years. Considering mitigating and aggravating factors as balanced, the Recorder reduced the sentence to two years’ imprisonment, rejecting suspension of the sentence as inappropriate given the seriousness of the offence.

The Applicant sought leave to appeal the sentence, which was refused by a single judge. The Applicant renewed the application for leave to appeal, which is the subject of this opinion.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting point of three years’ custody under category B1 was appropriate given the nature of the assault.
2. Whether the mitigating factors, including the Applicant’s character, provocation, and personal circumstances, warranted a lower starting point or a reduced sentence.
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle by refusing to suspend the custodial sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The assault was impulsive, spontaneous, and short-lived, representing a category C element that should have lowered the starting point below three years.
• Mitigating factors such as the Applicant’s good character, provocation, history of abuse by the Complainant, and difficult personal background outweighed the aggravating factors.
• The sentencing judge erred in concluding that only immediate custody could achieve appropriate punishment, failing to properly consider suspension combined with community orders.
• The Applicant posed no risk to the public, had no prior convictions, and was vulnerable in custody, factors supporting suspension.
• The impact of the Applicant’s incarceration on her family, including her daughter’s employment, was significant and should have been considered.

Respondent's Arguments

• The offence was correctly categorised as B1 due to the deliberate use of a weapon causing life-changing injury.
• The short-lived nature of the assault did not justify lowering the starting point as the use of the plank was calm and deliberate.
• The balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors by the sentencing judge was reasonable and not erroneous.
• The refusal to suspend the sentence was consistent with the Imposition Guideline given the seriousness of the offence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court agreed with the single judge’s reasoning that the offence was properly placed in category B1 of the sentencing guideline due to the deliberate and reckless use of a plank of wood as a weapon causing severe and permanent injury. The impulsive nature of the assault advanced by the Applicant was rejected because the act of picking up and throwing the plank was calm and deliberate rather than momentary or spontaneous.

The court found no error in the sentencing judge’s balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors, noting that the aggravating factor of committing the offence in the presence of children was appropriately weighed against the Applicant’s mitigation. The sentence of two years, after credit for a guilty plea, was not excessive given the gravity of the injury inflicted.

Regarding suspension, the court held that the sentencing judge properly applied the Imposition Guideline, concluding that immediate custody was necessary to achieve appropriate punishment. The court found no arguable error in the refusal to suspend the sentence, noting the judge had considered the Applicant’s personal circumstances and vulnerability in custody but determined these did not outweigh the seriousness of the offence.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant’s two-year custodial sentence stands as imposed. The court did not find the sentence manifestly excessive nor any error in principle by the sentencing judge. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision reinforces the application of sentencing guidelines in cases involving serious bodily harm caused by deliberate use of a weapon, as well as the limited circumstances in which suspension of sentence may be appropriate.