Budea, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following an earlier refusal by the single judge. The Appellant (aged 57) was sentenced on 15 September 2023 at the Crown Court at The City by Judge Dickinson (sitting as a Deputy Circuit Judge) for the following offences: attempted murder (count 2); wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (count 4); and having an article with a blade or point in a public place (count 1). The jury convicted the Appellant of attempted murder after a trial; the Appellant pleaded guilty to the section 18 offence and the blade/point offence.

The sentencing structure imposed by Judge Dickinson was: an extended determinate sentence of 17 years for the attempted murder (comprising 15 years' custody and a two-year extended licence); a consecutive extended determinate sentence of six years for the section 18 offence (comprising five years' custody and a one-year extended licence); and a concurrent term of 12 months' imprisonment for the blade/point offence. The aggregate custodial term imposed was therefore 20 years, with an aggregate extended licence period of three years.

The Appellant lodged his own grounds of appeal against sentence substantially out of time and sought an extension of 251 days for leave to appeal. He explained in his appeal notice that he had been advised he had no grounds of appeal and had not appreciated he could lodge an application himself. Although the court observed that no good reason had been shown for such a lengthy delay, the appellate court nevertheless considered the merits of the proposed appeal.

Factual background to the offences (as stated in the sentencing material and the trial): the Appellant had been in a long relationship with the Complainant for around 15 years; the relationship ended in December 2021. After separation the Complainant lived with her mother and a lodger, but she and the Appellant continued to see one another occasionally because they worked in the same department at The Hospital. In early August 2022 the Appellant's behaviour worsened: the Complainant blocked his phone after he sent abusive text messages, and between 5 and 15 August the Appellant made 69 calls to her number that went unanswered.

The offences occurred on 13 August 2022. The Complainant was working an early shift at The Hospital. The Appellant attended The Hospital before his shift, carrying a rucksack in which a very large kitchen knife was concealed; he appeared unsteady and affected by alcohol. At about 2pm he burst into an office, saw the Complainant, cried and apologised briefly, then left. Later, as the Complainant walked home, she encountered the Appellant at a bus stop. After a short interaction in which she told him to recover from the drink and he was abusive, she crossed the road; the Appellant followed. CCTV and the evidence of a third-party observer (Victim B) captured what followed: the Appellant removed the knife from his rucksack and attacked the Complainant, making at least six distinct thrusts; she collapsed; the Appellant got on top of her with the knife. The jury were sure that the Appellant intended to kill the Complainant.

When Victim B intervened to protect the Complainant, he pulled the Appellant off the Complainant but was slashed by the Appellant and sustained a gaping wound to the left lower arm. The Appellant advanced on Victim B and made at least one further deliberate strike in his direction. Both victims were treated in hospital and released shortly thereafter; the Appellant required life-saving surgery after stabbing himself in the neck in an apparent attempt at suicide. When arrested two days later, the Appellant declined to answer questions in interview.

The Appellant had relevant previous convictions, including possession of a knife in 2008 (resulting in a community order) and two subsequent breaches in 2009. The author of the pre-sentence report assessed the Appellant as presenting a high risk of serious harm to the public. Psychiatric reports had been obtained before trial as to possible amnesia in relation to the incident; there was no suggestion that a psychiatric disposal should be considered for sentence. Detailed sentencing notes were prepared for both prosecution and defence to assist the sentencing judge with guideline categorisation and concurrency/consecutiveness considerations.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should grant an extension of time (an additional 251 days) for the Appellant to apply for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Whether there is any arguable merit in the Appellant's contention that the total custodial term of 20 years (with extended licence periods) was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle — including challenges to the categorisation of offences under the Sentencing Council guidelines, the decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences, and the imposition of extended determinate sentences on the basis that the statutory threshold of dangerousness was met.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The total custodial term of 20 years was too long in light of the Appellant's previous good character and his age.
• The guilty plea to the section 18 wounding offence warranted greater reduction; accordingly a custodial term of 15 years without any extended licence period would have been more appropriate.

The opinion does not set out a detailed account of the responding party's submissions opposing the renewed application for leave; instead, the court's reasoning records its assessment of the sentencing judge's approach and the absence of arguable merit in the proposed appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate panel, in considering the renewed application for leave to appeal and the request for an extension of time, proceeded on two connected lines of enquiry: (a) whether there was any satisfactory explanation for the lengthy delay; and (b) whether the proposed grounds of appeal disclosed any arguable merit.

On delay, the court recorded that the Appellant's proffered explanation (that he had been advised he had no grounds and did not appreciate he could apply himself) did not constitute a good reason for the 251-day delay. Nevertheless, the court exercised its discretion to consider the merits of the proposed appeal.

Substantively, the court examined the sentencing judge's detailed factual findings and his application of the Sentencing Council guidelines. The court accepted the sentencing judge's categorisation of the attempted murder as level B high culpability with harm category 3, producing a guideline starting point of 20 years' custody (range 15–25). The judge identified relevant aggravating features (domestic background and commission of the offence under the influence of alcohol) and mitigating features (limited previous convictions, genuine remorse, and no history of actual violence towards the Complainant). The sentencing judge assessed that, if the attempted murder had stood alone, the appropriate sentence after trial would have been 18 years; the judge reduced that to 15 years in recognition of totality considerations across counts.

For the section 18 wounding, the sentencing judge categorised the offence as category 3A with level A high culpability because of the use of the knife. Harm was treated as category 3; the guideline starting point produced a five-year custodial sentence with a range of four to seven years. The sentencing judge treated the fact that Victim B was a member of the public who had bravely intervened as a very significant aggravator, and found that the offence, had it stood alone, would merit seven years' custody after trial. Because the Appellant pleaded guilty to that offence, the sentencing judge allowed appropriate credit of 25%, reducing the notional sentence to five years and three months.

The sentencing judge gave careful consideration to whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive and applied the Sentencing Council guideline on totality. The judge concluded that the offences, though arising in the same incident, were distinct and involved an aggravating element that required separate recognition (the judge explicitly treated the situation as analogous to the guideline example of an assault on a police officer during an attempt to flee). Consequently, consecutive sentences were appropriate subject to adjustment for totality. The sentencing judge calculated the separate consecutive terms (15 years and 5 years 3 months) and then made reductions to reflect totality, arriving at the aggregate custodial term of 20 years (with extended licence periods totalling three years).

On the issue of dangerousness and the statutory threshold for imposing extended determinate sentences, the sentencing judge considered the pre-sentence report (which assessed a high risk of serious harm to the Complainant, to future partners of the Appellant and to the public, albeit with a low assessed risk of reconviction) and the psychiatric reports (which noted a pattern of excessive drinking, and a history of anxiety and depression). The combination of the premeditated use of a knife against an unarmed woman, subsequent attack on a member of the public who intervened, and the Appellant's self-harm led the sentencing judge to conclude that the threshold for dangerousness was satisfied and that extended sentences were necessary for public protection. The appellate court accepted that conclusion.

The appellate court reviewed whether any of the sentencing judge's assessments or conclusions could be impugned on an arguable basis. The court found none: the judge's factual findings, guideline categorisations, application of aggravating and mitigating factors, approach to concurrency/consecutiveness and totality reductions, and conclusions on dangerousness were all sustained. The appellate court described the sentencing judge's analysis and exposition as "immaculate" and concluded there was no arguable merit in the proposed appeal.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is REFUSED, and the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is also REFUSED.

Implications:

• The direct effect is that the sentencing order imposed by Judge Dickinson (aggregate custodial term of 20 years with an aggregate extended licence period of three years, comprising the consecutive extended determinate sentences described above) remains in place and the Appellant's application to challenge that sentence by way of leave to appeal is denied.
• The appellate court did not identify or establish any new legal principle or precedent in refusing leave; its decision rests on affirming the sentencing judge's faithful application of the Sentencing Council guidelines, the totality principle, and the statutory dangerousness threshold based on the material before the sentencing judge.

This summary has been prepared solely from the contents of the provided opinion and anonymises all personal and location identifiers in accordance with the instructions governing this summary.