Hayes & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

These appeals arise from sentences imposed by His Honour Judge MacAdam on 20 December 2024 at the Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street. Two appellants were sentenced for offences including inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The first appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment with a statutory surcharge order. The second appellant was sentenced to 30 months' detention in a young offenders' institution for the main offence, with an additional concurrent 1-month sentence for handling stolen goods and a consecutive 3-month sentence activating a suspended sentence order, making a total of 33 months' detention.

The main offence involved an assault on a complainant at a shop in Oldham, captured on CCTV, where both appellants repeatedly punched and kicked the victim, causing significant injuries including a fractured eye socket and suspected brain bleed. Both were arrested shortly after. The second appellant also faced sentencing for handling stolen goods and activation of a suspended sentence related to prior offences of drug possession and assaulting an emergency worker.

The sentencing judge characterized the injuries as "grave" (category 2 harm), assessed culpability as medium (category B), and applied aggravating factors including previous convictions. Guilty pleas were credited at 25%. The judge adjusted sentences accordingly, with the first appellant receiving 22 months' imprisonment and the second appellant 33 months' detention in total.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the categorization of the offence as causing "grave injury" (category 2 harm) was correct.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in increasing the sentence from the starting point to the upper limit of the guideline range.
3. Whether the second appellant’s role in the offence warranted a lesser sentence than his co-appellant.
4. Whether the sentence properly reflected the appellants’ mitigation, including youth and personal circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant Hayes' Arguments

• The offence was incorrectly categorized as causing "grave injury" since the most serious injury was a fractured eye socket, which is serious but inherent in all section 20 offences.
• The judge lacked clear medical evidence or victim testimony to support the categorization.
• The upward adjustment of the sentence to the top of the range was unjustified, as the only aggravating factor was antecedent history unrelated to violence.

Appellant Mack's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive.
• The offence should have been categorized as causing category 3B harm rather than 2B.
• The appellant had a lesser role than his co-defendant, warranting a lesser sentence.
• The sentence failed to adequately reflect his youth, immaturity, diagnosed ADHD, learning difficulties, and vulnerability to exploitation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the sentencing judge was entitled to consider the nature of the attack and the foreseeable harm under section 63(b)(iii) of the Sentencing Code. The court noted that a kick to a victim lying on the ground with a shod foot could foreseeably cause more serious injury than actually occurred. However, the court agreed with the appellants that the injuries did not constitute "grave injury" but rather fell into category 3 harm, which carries a lower sentencing range.

The court reviewed the definitive guideline for section 20 offences and concluded that the appropriate starting point for category 3B harm was one year custody with a range up to two years. The court found that the sentencing judge could have gone to the top of this range but not beyond it for the first appellant. For the second appellant, with additional offences and a more serious record, an upward adjustment was justified but should remain proportionate.

The court accepted that credit for guilty pleas at 25% was appropriate and unchallenged. Taking into account mitigation, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the first appellant was 14 months' custody and for the second appellant 21 months' custody for the main offence, with the other sentences for the second appellant to remain as imposed.

Holding and Implications

The appeals were allowed to the following extent:

• For the first appellant, the sentence for the section 20 offence was reduced from 22 months to 14 months' custody.
• For the second appellant, the sentence for the section 20 offence was reduced from 30 months to 21 months' custody, resulting in a total sentence of 24 months' detention when combined with other sentences.

The sentences for handling stolen goods and activation of the suspended sentence order for the second appellant remain undisturbed. No new precedent was established; the decision primarily adjusted the sentences to align with the proper categorization of harm and sentencing guidelines, reflecting mitigation and culpability appropriately.