Woods, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an anonymized summary of an appellate judgment delivered by Judge [Last Name]. The Appellant (then aged 32) pleaded guilty to dangerous driving on 12 June 2024 in the Crown Court at The City and pleaded guilty on 25 October 2024 to causing grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent to resist or prevent his apprehension. On 6 December 2024 the Sentencing Judge imposed a sentence of 6 years and 4 months' imprisonment for the GBH offence; no separate penalty was imposed for the earlier charge of dangerous driving. The Appellant was also disqualified from driving for 8 years and 2 months and ordered to take an extended driving re-test. The Appellant was granted leave by the Single Judge to appeal the sentence.

The core factual events occurred on the evening of 5 May 2024. An Officer attended [Number] Main Street in The City in response to allegations (later not pursued) that the Appellant had subjected his Partner to domestic violence and harassment. The Partner's parents' home was the address visited. After taking an account, the Officer left the premises at about 23:20 intending to search for the Appellant, having been given details of the Appellant's van. The Officer observed a van with a faulty front light heading towards the address and then recognised it as belonging to the Appellant. Because the street was a cul-de-sac, the Officer positioned his marked police vehicle to prevent the Appellant driving out; the Officer alighted and approached the Appellant's van and asked the Appellant to get out. The Appellant asked "What for?", wound up the window, turned his vehicle around and then drove towards the Officer.

Body-worn and CCTV footage recorded the Officer shouting at the Appellant to stop; the Officer held out his palm to indicate for the driver to stop. The Appellant ignored the Officer's requests and attempted to drive his van through an inadequate space between the police car and the pavement where the Officer was standing. The van struck the police car and the Officer; a witness saw the van's wheels on top of the Officer. The Appellant then drove away. The Officer was taken to The Hospital and referred to The Clinic; on 13 May a left ankle fracture was diagnosed and he was treated with a walker boot and crutches, referred for follow-up and physiotherapy, and later described pain in his left knee. In victim personal statements the Officer reported blood clots in his left leg, psychological distress including re-triggered post-traumatic stress disorder from an earlier incident, and ongoing pain and sciatica; the opinion describes the effects upon him as very serious.

The Appellant was arrested on 6 May 2024 and, in interview, denied driving the vehicle. He had a number of relevant previous convictions: violent disorder (2006); driving without due care and attention (2017); dangerous driving (2018); attempted robbery (2019); escape from custody (2020); and harassment (2023). He had previously served sentences of imprisonment and was subject to a community order at the time of the present offences.

The Sentencing Judge did not have a pre‑sentence report but had a letter from the Appellant expressing regret, a letter from his Partner describing care difficulties with two young children (who had significant health issues), and a positive report from prison concerning the Appellant. The Appellant's agreed basis of plea stated that he did not intend to harm the Officer; he said he was going to see his Partner, that tensions were high because a baby had been born prematurely and they had had a falling out, and that he had attempted, in the heat of the moment, to squeeze his van through the available gap to leave the scene.

At sentence the Sentencing Judge described the manoeuvre as "highly dangerous". The Judge concluded that the Appellant had known the Officer was present in the confined space and that the manoeuvre presented an obvious risk of striking him and causing very serious injury. The Judge identified harm as within category 2 and culpability as high (the van being used as a weapon or equivalent), and treated the victim being a police officer and the Appellant's prior record and breach of a community order as aggravating features. The Judge stated that, had the offence been covered by the guideline for causing really serious harm (section 18), the appropriate sentence would be at the top of the relevant range; the Judge reduced that notional sentence to 8½ years because the offence involved an intention to avoid apprehension rather than an intention to cause really serious harm and because of personal mitigation, and then applied a 25% reduction for guilty plea to reach 6 years and 4 months' imprisonment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence of 6 years and 4 months for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to resist or prevent apprehension was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the Sentencing Judge erred in adopting a notional starting point (described in argument as approximately 10 years before mitigation) and in the assessment of reductions for the absence of an intention to cause really serious harm and for personal mitigation.
3. How (and to what extent) the Court should have regard to authorities and sentencing guidance developed for offences involving an intention to cause really serious harm when the offence before the court involved an intention to resist or avoid arrest.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence imposed was argued to be manifestly excessive.
• It was submitted that the Judge's notional pre-mitigation figure (described in argument as 10 years) was too high.
• The reductions applied for the Appellant's lack of an intention to cause really serious harm and for personal mitigation were said to be insufficient.

The opinion records that helpful submissions were made on behalf of the Appellant by Attorney [Last Name], but does not contain a detailed, point‑by‑point account of any responding submissions from the Crown.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v [Name A] [2012] EWCA Crim 2322	The Court of Appeal upheld an 8‑year sentence for causing GBH with intent to resist or prevent apprehension where the defendant drove a car and broke a police officer's leg. The court noted that the guideline for offences involving an intention to cause really serious harm had, for top‑category offences, a starting point of 12 years and that a 10‑year starting point before plea was not manifestly excessive in that case. It observed that really serious harm to the victim was close to inevitable on the facts.	The appellate court in the present case noted this authority when considering whether the Sentencing Judge was entitled to have regard to the section 18 guideline (despite it not being directly applicable). The court treated the decision as fact‑specific but acknowledged its relevance in illustrating that, were there an intention to cause really serious harm with a large vehicle, a starting point in double figures could be appropriate.
R v [Name B] [2014] EWCA Crim 2006	The Court of Appeal upheld 8 years 9 months for causing GBH with intent to resist arrest where the offender hit a police officer with his car. The court held that driving which involved a clear and obvious risk of serious consequences could involve recklessness approaching intent, and that judges could have regard to the levels of sentence for section 18 offences even where the offence was one of resisting arrest. The court noted Parliament's imposition of the same maximum sentence (life) for both types of offence as recognising the exacerbating effect of serious harm caused to avoid arrest.	The present court relied on the principle that dangerous driving to avoid arrest can give rise to very high culpability and that such conduct may, in practical terms, approach the seriousness of an intention to cause very serious harm. That principle supported the Sentencing Judge's assessment of culpability and aggravating features in this case.
R v [Name C] [2020] EWCA 1082	The Court of Appeal observed that an intention to resist arrest is generally less culpable than an intention to cause really serious harm, and that differences in culpability should be reflected in sentence.	The present court accepted the distinction urged by that authority but concluded that, on the facts and film here, the Appellant's conduct combined an intention to evade arrest with such a high degree of recklessness that the resulting culpability was not so very different from an intention to cause really serious harm. The court also confirmed that the Sentencing Judge appropriately took account of the difference in culpability when arriving at the final sentence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court set out its approach to the appeal by (i) reviewing the sentencing exercise undertaken by the Sentencing Judge, (ii) examining the factual material (including body‑worn and CCTV footage), and (iii) considering the authorities relied on by counsel and the Sentencing Judge. The court expressly noted that none of the cited authorities was a guideline case and that the outcomes in them were fact‑sensitive; it nevertheless had some regard to the section 18 guideline for offences involving an intention to cause really serious harm, even though that guideline did not directly apply to the offence before the court.

The court accepted that the Sentencing Judge had been entitled to characterise the Appellant's manoeuvre as "highly dangerous" and to find that the Appellant was aware of the Officer's presence in a confined space and deliberately attempted to drive through that confined space. The footage showed an attempt to drive a large vehicle through a small gap in very close proximity to the Officer; the court regarded the risk of causing very serious injury as very high. On those factual findings, the court concluded there was both an intention to evade arrest and a high degree of recklessness in doing so. The court considered that the combination of intention to evade arrest and the high recklessness here resulted in culpability that, in practical effect, was not materially different from an intention to cause really serious harm.

The court reviewed the Sentencing Judge's application of the sentencing framework: the Judge treated harm as category 2, culpability as high (vehicle used as a weapon or equivalent), and started from a notional figure which, insofar as the Judge described it, would place the offence at the top of the guideline range (the Judge stated a starting point for the comparable section 18 scenario of 7 years with a range of 6–10 years, and indicated that the appropriate sentence would be at the top of that range had the guideline applied). The Judge then reduced to 8½ years to reflect that the offence involved an intention to avoid arrest rather than to cause really serious harm and because of personal mitigation, and applied a 25% reduction for guilty plea to reach 6 years and 4 months.

The appellate court considered the Appellant's submitted grounds (that the pre‑mitigation figure was too high and that reductions were insufficient), the Appellant's personal mitigation and circumstances, and the aggravating features (prior convictions, breach of community order, and that the victim was a police officer). The court acknowledged sympathy for the Appellant's personal circumstances but regarded them as of limited weight in the face of an offence of this seriousness and the severe effects on the Officer. Having assessed culpability and harm and the aggravating and mitigating features, the court concluded that the Sentencing Judge had taken proper account of the absence of an intention to cause really serious harm and of the Appellant's personal mitigation, and had properly calibrated the final sentence.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The appellate court held that the sentence of 6 years and 4 months' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the Appellant's challenge to sentence.

Direct consequences: The sentence imposed by the Sentencing Judge stands. The ancillary orders (8 years and 2 months' driving disqualification and an extended driving re-test) remain in force as imposed below.

Implications: The court applied existing authorities and sentencing principles to the facts and did not purport to create new law. The decision confirms that, on the facts of a particular case, the combination of an intention to evade arrest and a very high degree of recklessness in using a large vehicle in close proximity to an officer can produce culpability comparable to offences involving an intention to cause really serious harm, and that sentencing judges may have regard to the section 18 guideline for context even where it does not directly apply. The opinion does not announce a novel precedent beyond these fact‑specific applications.