Hope, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was sentenced to an extended sentence of 11 years and 2 months, comprising a custodial term of 7 years and 2 months and an extended licence period of 4 years, for the offence of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Concurrently, a sentence of 22 months' imprisonment was imposed for breach of a restraining order, initially charged under a repealed provision of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 but corrected to section 363(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 pursuant to transitional provisions and precedent.

In 2020, a restraining order prohibited the Appellant from contacting or visiting his mother. On 1 January 2024, the Appellant unlawfully entered her home, assaulted her by wrapping sellotape around her head, threatened her with a knife, strangled and punched her, causing her to lose consciousness multiple times. The complainant sustained multiple injuries including bruising, lacerations, and swelling. Emergency services attended, and the Appellant was subsequently convicted and sentenced.

At sentencing, the judge classified the offence as high culpability with category 3 harm, attributing aggravating factors such as prior violent convictions, breach of restraining order, and being on licence. The judge allowed a 10% reduction for a guilty plea and imposed an extended sentence, assessing the Appellant as a dangerous offender.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence for the offence of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
2. Whether the judge erred by not reducing the sentence to reflect the fact that the offence was an attempt rather than a completed offence.
3. Whether the increase of three years to the starting point of the sentence was justified.
4. Whether the judge erred in finding there to be no mitigation other than the guilty plea.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• A sentence for an attempted offence should ordinarily be less than for the completed offence; no reduction was made to reflect this principle in the present case.
• The aggravating features did not justify an increase of more than 50% above the starting point, and the sentence imposed exceeded the appropriate range.
• The judge erred in finding no mitigation other than the guilty plea; the Appellant's difficult childhood and history of abuse should have been considered mitigating factors.

Court's Submissions

• Accepted the general principle that sentences for attempts should be reduced but noted that the Appellant did not voluntarily desist; the offence involved serious harm and persistent assault.
• The judge was justified in increasing the starting point due to serious aggravating factors including breaches of restraining orders, previous violent convictions, and the Appellant being on licence.
• Little mitigation was present, and even if the Appellant's difficult background was considered, the aggravating factors outweighed it significantly.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Jowett [2022] EWCA Crim 629	Correction of records involving repealed statutory provisions under transitional provisions.	The court directed correction of the charge to reflect the re-enacted provision under the Sentencing Act 2020, validating the conviction despite the erroneous original charge.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the established principle that sentences for attempted offences should generally be lower than for completed offences. However, it found that the circumstances here did not warrant such a reduction because the Appellant did not voluntarily desist but ceased only after the victim became unconscious. The judge's assessment of the offence as involving category 3 harm was appropriate, reflecting serious and persistent assault including strangulation and use of a knife.

The court accepted the starting point of 3 years for culpability level 3A harm and upheld the judge's decision to increase the sentence due to significant aggravating factors: breaches of restraining orders, prior violent convictions (including violence against the complainant), and breach of licence conditions. The offence of breaching the restraining order was serious and justified a separate starting point, which the judge incorporated as part of the overall sentence.

Regarding mitigation, the court found that although the Appellant's difficult childhood was a factor, it did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances. The judge's conclusion that the only mitigation was the guilty plea was not erroneous given the overall context.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed on grounds 1 and 3, and permission to appeal is refused on ground 2.

The court's decision upholds the extended sentence imposed on the Appellant. This outcome confirms the court's approach to sentencing in serious attempted offences involving persistent and violent conduct, emphasizing that reductions for attempts are not automatic if the offender did not voluntarily desist. The ruling does not establish new precedent but reinforces the application of sentencing guidelines and principles in cases involving breaches of restraining orders and violent offences against protected persons.