Popescu, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 4 April 2024, the Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted murder and stalking, contrary to section 2A(1) and (4) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On 28 May 2024, the Appellant was sentenced for the attempted murder to an extended determinate sentence of 20 years 4 months, comprising a custodial term of 17 years 4 months and an extended licence period of 3 years. No separate penalty was imposed for the stalking offence.

The Appellant and the Victim commenced a relationship in September 2020 and separated in August 2023. The Victim was pregnant with the Appellant's child. After separation, the Appellant became fixated with the Victim and began stalking her, repeatedly contacting her from a withheld number, following her, and leaving items and messages at her address. The Victim moved to a new address to escape the Appellant, but he continued to pursue her, including stating intentions to harm her new partner.

On 5 December 2024, the Appellant, armed with a knife, attacked the Victim, who was 37 weeks pregnant, stabbing her multiple times. A passerby intervened, causing the Appellant to flee. The Victim sustained multiple stab wounds but was treated successfully at the hospital, and her unborn child was unharmed. The Victim provided a victim impact statement describing severe psychological effects and fear for her and her child’s safety.

The Appellant was of previous good character. The sentencing judge considered pre-sentence and psychiatric reports, and imposed the sentence reflecting the seriousness of the attempted murder, the stalking conduct, the domestic context, the Appellant’s lack of remorse, and the risk posed to the public.

The Appellant appealed the sentence by leave of the Single Judge, represented by Attorney Aubrey KC, focusing on the categorisation of the offence under the sentencing guidelines.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the lead offence of attempted murder as falling within category B2 rather than category B3 of the sentencing guidelines.
2. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the categorisation and the harm caused.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge was incorrect to categorise the offence as category B2 rather than B3, which affected the sentence severity.
• The victim’s physical injuries were not of the most serious type, and the victim personal statement did not establish serious psychological harm beyond the expected impact of attempted murder.
• The judge was distracted by section 63(3) of the Sentencing Act 2020, which requires consideration of harm caused and harm intended or foreseeably caused, despite the offence being attempted murder with intent to kill.
• The starting point for a category B3 offence is 20 years with a range of 15 to 25 years, suggesting the sentence was excessive.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that the correct categorisation of the physical harm to the Victim was category 3 rather than category 2 as found by the sentencing judge. However, it disagreed with the Appellant's submission regarding the psychological harm, which the court found was significant and not easily dismissed.

The court noted that the aggravating features identified by the judge—such as the offence being committed while on bail, the domestic context, the Victim’s pregnancy, the risk to the unborn child, and lack of remorse—would have justified an uplift in sentence even if the offence was categorised as B3 rather than B2.

The court referred to the sentencing guideline provision allowing for a sentence higher than the offence range or an extended sentence where the offence involves an extreme nature of high culpability factors.

The court considered CCTV evidence showing the Appellant lying in wait and repeatedly stabbing the Victim, concluding the Appellant only desisted due to intervention by a passerby. The premeditation and planning, combined with the intent to kill the Victim and her unborn child, justified the categorisation as a high culpability offence.

The court held that whether the starting point was category B2 or B3, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive given the aggravating circumstances and the extended sentence to protect the public.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, confirming that the categorisation of the offence and the resulting sentence were appropriate in light of the facts and aggravating factors. The decision directly affects the parties by affirming the extended determinate sentence of 20 years and 4 months with a licence period of 3 years. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling.