Rossiter, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 11 June 2024, in the Crown Court at Canterbury, the Appellant, aged 24 at the time, pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This count was an alternative to an attempted murder charge, on which the prosecution offered no evidence, resulting in a not guilty verdict under section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The Appellant also pleaded guilty to assaulting an emergency worker, while a charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving was ordered to lie on the file.

On 11 October 2024, the Appellant was sentenced as a dangerous offender by His Honour Judge James, Recorder of Canterbury, to an extended sentence of 12 years—comprising 10 years custodial and 2 years extended licence—for the grievous bodily harm offence, with a concurrent three-month sentence for the assault. The Appellant appealed the sentence, contending that the starting point was too high and that insufficient credit was given for the guilty pleas.

The factual background involves an incident on 26 January 2024, when a uniformed police officer was conducting speed tests in a residential area of Ashford. The officer observed a vehicle driven by the Appellant exceeding the speed limit. Upon signaling the vehicle to stop, the Appellant accelerated towards the officer, who jumped onto the bonnet and was injured. The vehicle then fled at excessive speeds, mounting pavements, colliding with another car, and was eventually abandoned after being set on fire. The Appellant and a passenger fled on foot but were later identified and arrested.

The injured officer sustained serious physical injuries including fractures to the hip joint and pelvic bone, and psychological injuries such as PTSD and depression, requiring rehabilitation. The assault on an emergency worker charge arose from a separate incident where the Appellant, while being transported in a police vehicle, became aggressive and attempted to bite an officer.

The Appellant had prior convictions for violent offences committed in 2019 and was noted to have ADHD, a disrupted education, and a history of substance use. The pre-sentence report described him as remorseful yet minimising responsibility, with some insight into psychological harm caused but less acknowledgement of physical harm. The report also noted his engagement in prison rehabilitation efforts and his failure to consistently take prescribed medication.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in taking too high a starting point for the custodial term of the extended sentence.
2. Whether insufficient credit was given for the Appellant’s guilty pleas in determining the length of the custodial sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point for sentencing was too high, with the judge improperly elevating culpability and harm categories.
• There was alleged double-counting of aggravating factors, particularly regarding the victim’s status as a police officer.
• The judge failed to properly credit mitigating factors, including the Appellant’s ADHD and his attempts to address offending behaviour.
• More credit should have been given for the guilty plea, given the timing and circumstances of the plea offer.

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 carefully reviewed the sentencing judge’s classification of the offence into Category 1A for culpability and harm, considering the deliberate nature of the Appellant’s conduct, the victim’s vulnerability as a police officer, and the use of the vehicle as a weapon. The court accepted that the judge reasonably identified multiple aggravating factors, including prior convictions, drug influence, lack of insurance and licence, and dangerous driving post-incident.

However, the court found difficulty in reconciling the judge’s elevation to Category 1A with the notional sentence of 12 years before credit for the guilty plea, suggesting the starting point was effectively raised beyond the standard range without clear justification. The court also considered that some mitigating factors, particularly the Appellant’s efforts to address his behaviour and the timing of the guilty plea, were insufficiently accounted for.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the offending and the appropriateness of the extended sentence, the court concluded that the custodial term should be reduced to reflect proper credit for mitigation and the guilty plea. The court emphasized that the reduction was due to an error in principle rather than misclassification of the offence’s seriousness.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART by reducing the custodial element of the extended sentence from 10 years to 9 years, maintaining the extended licence period of 2 years, resulting in an overall extended sentence of 11 years (9 years custodial plus 2 years licence).

This decision adjusts the sentence to properly reflect mitigation and credit for the guilty plea without undermining the gravity of the offence or the dangerous offender designation. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily affects the Appellant’s sentence by correcting the application of sentencing principles in this case.