Bryson, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

An application was made by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer a sentence for review under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the ground that it was unduly lenient and should be increased. The court granted leave for the referral.

The offender, aged 31, was convicted by a jury on 27 September 2024 of two offences: wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and possession of an article with a blade or point contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. These convictions breached a suspended sentence order for battery imposed days before the incident.

On 28 October 2024, His Honour Judge Marson KC sentenced the offender at the Crown Court at Durham. For the wounding offence, an extended sentence of eight years and six months’ custody with a four-year extended licence period was imposed. A concurrent two-year sentence was imposed for the blade offence, and the suspended sentence of 10 weeks was activated to run concurrently.

The incident occurred on 28 February 2024 during a violent altercation between the offender and the victim inside a property, continuing outside. The offender instigated the fight, armed himself with a small kitchen knife with a three-inch blade, and stabbed the victim four times—once in the chest and three times in the back as the victim sought to escape. The offender fled the scene. The victim received rapid medical treatment on site and hospital care thereafter.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence as Category A2 for harm rather than the higher Category A1, given the life-threatening nature of the victim's injuries.
2. Whether the sentence imposed was unduly lenient and should be increased to fall within the Category A1 sentencing range.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The judge incorrectly categorised the offence as Category A2 for harm when the injuries were life-threatening, warranting Category A1.
• The starting point for Category A1 is 12 years' imprisonment, higher than the seven years for Category A2, and the sentence should be increased accordingly.
• The judge’s finding of life-threatening injuries required placement in Category A1, making the imposed sentence unduly lenient.

Offender's Representative's Arguments

• The Solicitor General’s approach oversimplifies the sentencing exercise, which requires nuanced judicial assessment beyond a single harm feature.
• Accepting the Solicitor General’s submission would unduly restrict the judge’s ability to reflect the overall impact of harm on the victim.
• The sentence imposed was within the reasonable range open to the judge.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the sentence was lenient but emphasised that the sentencing judge had conducted a careful and judicial assessment rather than mechanically applying guideline labels. The injuries were life-threatening only for a short period before rapid medical intervention mitigated the threat. The victim sustained no long-term serious injury beyond scarring, and psychological effects were limited to the immediate aftermath.

The court explained that the sentencing guideline requires assessment of both culpability and harm on a spectrum. The offender’s use of a three-inch kitchen knife placed the offence in Category A for culpability, but the harm assessment required balancing the life-threatening nature of the injuries against the absence of lasting serious harm.

The judge found the case fell on the cusp between Categories A1 and A2 and chose to sentence at the top of Category A2, later reducing the term to reflect mitigation. The court found no error in this nuanced approach and concluded that the difference between a nine-year sentence and a hypothetical ten-year sentence (the cusp of Categories A1 and A2) did not render the sentence unduly lenient.

Accordingly, the court endorsed the judge’s multifactorial assessment of culpability and harm and declined to interfere with the sentence.

Holding and Implications

The court DECLINED TO INTERFERE with the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.

The decision means the offender’s extended sentence of eight years and six months’ custody with a four-year extended licence period stands as imposed. No new precedent was established; the ruling affirms that sentencing judges may apply a nuanced assessment of harm and culpability within guideline frameworks without mechanical categorisation.