Anonymised Summary of Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion records a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following earlier refusal by a single judge. The applicant was tried in the Crown Court at The City before Judge Brown and a jury. The applicant, aged 26 at the time of the opinion, was convicted after trial of four offences: criminal damage; threatening with an offensive weapon contrary to section 52 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019; wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861; and assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the 1861 Act. At the start of the trial he had pleaded guilty to disclosing a sexual photograph or film without consent contrary to section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. He was acquitted of other counts.

On sentence, imposed by Judge Brown on 11 April 2024, the lead offence was the section 18 wounding. The judge imposed an extended determinate sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 consisting of a custodial term of eight years and an extended licence period of four years. Other counts attracted concurrent determinate sentences (ranging from one month to two years six months or three months as applicable). A restraining order of ten years was also imposed.

The present application is a renewed request for leave to appeal the sentence following an earlier refusal by a single judge. The applicant’s originally settled grounds challenged both the length of the custodial term and the imposition of the extended sentence. On renewal, there was some procedural uncertainty about which grounds were formally pursued, but the full court proceeded on the basis that the applicant maintained challenges to both elements (custodial length and the imposition of the extended sentence).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether leave should be granted to appeal the length of the custodial term imposed for the section 18 wounding offence.
2. Whether leave should be granted to appeal the imposition of an extended determinate sentence (the extension period) and, relatedly, whether the threshold of dangerousness for imposing an extended sentence was correctly applied.
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the culpability level (including whether high culpability was appropriately found for the section 18 and section 47 offences) and whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or disproportionate.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments (as advanced by Attorney Fooks)

• The extended sentence (total 12 years when custodial term and extension are combined) was excessive and manifestly disproportionate.
• The custodial term of eight years for the section 18 offence was too long, even accepting it reflected overall criminality.
• The sentencing judge was wrong to classify either the section 18 offence or the section 47 assault as high culpability offences.
• The applicant sought to rely on significant indicators of changed attitude and engagement while on remand and custody (participation in anger management, cooperation with prison regime, assisting fellow prisoners, and personal mitigation such as psychological impact and bereavement), which, it was submitted, should have been given greater weight in sentencing.
• Attorney Fooks did not submit that an extended sentence was necessarily wrong in principle, but urged that the particular length of extension and custodial term were excessive in the circumstances.

The opinion does not provide a detailed account of the Crown's or respondent's oral submissions in opposition.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by reviewing both the factual matrix and the sentencing judge's application of the appropriate guidelines and statutory provisions. The salient elements of the court's reasoning are as follows:

• Lead offence selection and reflection of totality: The trial judge chose the section 18 wounding as the lead offence and reflected the overall criminality of the other offences in the custodial term imposed for that offence. Concurrent sentences were imposed on other counts so their seriousness was reflected in the eight-year lead custodial term.
• Application of sentencing guidelines to the section 18 offence:
  • The sentencing judge found high culpability because the assault involved the use of a highly dangerous weapon (a knife) and a significant degree of planning or premeditation (the applicant read messages, attended the address, waited for a neighbour to leave, then entered over a balcony and attacked).
  • Harm was categorised as category 3 because, although injuries looked severe and bled heavily, they were not as serious as they might have been by fortune. The applicable guideline starting point for such assessment was five years with a range of four to seven years, before aggravation and other features.
  • The offence was aggravated by relevant previous convictions and the domestic context.
• Application to the section 47 assault on the complainant:
  • The judge again assessed high culpability on the basis of planning/premeditation and the complainant's vulnerability (attack occurred at night while children were asleep and against a partner with a history of prior violence).
  • Harm was assessed as category 2, producing a guideline starting point of 18 months' custody with a range up to two and a half years.
• Dangerousness and the extended sentence:
  • The judge reviewed the statutory test and relevant factors for dangerousness. She concluded there was a risk of serious harm to the public from further specified offences by the applicant, given the pattern of offending (including a previous section 20 offence with a fractured jaw and a pattern of offences against the complainant) and the violent facts of the present incidents.
  • The judge identified the particular danger as to the complainant and to any man close to her, and that a determinate sentence alone would not provide sufficient protection. The judge therefore found the threshold of dangerousness satisfied and that an extended sentence was necessary for public protection.
  • Having determined dangerousness, the judge set an extension period of four years to monitor and mitigate the risk on release; the appellate court found this period proportionate given the applicant's prior failures to comply with suspended sentences and the likely recurrence of conflict in the relationship.
• Assessment of mitigation and appellate deference:
  • The sentencing judge had the advantage of hearing all evidence and assessing credibility, culpability and temperament at first instance. The appellate court emphasised that the judge was best placed to make those findings.
  • Although the applicant had engaged in some positive behaviour while remanded (courses, co-operation), the appellate court agreed with the sentencing judge that there was ample material to support the findings on culpability and dangerousness and therefore no arguable ground of appeal.
• Totality and proportionality:
  • The court considered the totality principle by noting concurrent sentences on the other counts and the reflection of their seriousness in the lead sentence. It concluded the custodial term and the length of the extension were within the judge's lawful sentencing discretion and proportionate in all the circumstances.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Direct consequences for the applicant (as recorded in the opinion):

• The extended determinate sentence imposed by the trial judge remains in force: an eight-year custodial term for the section 18 offence together with an extended licence period of four years.
• Concurrent determinate sentences on other counts (criminal damage: one month; threatening with an offensive weapon: 18 months; section 47 assault: two years six months; disclosure of sexual photograph/film: three months) remain as imposed and are concurrent with the lead sentence.
• A restraining order for ten years remains in place.

The court emphasised that no new legal precedent was established by this refusal; the decision applies the governing statutes and Sentencing Council guidelines to the facts and demonstrates appellate deference to first-instance findings on culpability, harm and dangerousness where those findings are supported by the evidential material.

All names and places have been anonymised in this summary in accordance with the instruction to remove personally identifiable information. References to statutory provisions and guidelines are retained only to the extent they appear in the provided opinion.