Summary of Opinion by Judge Sweeting

Factual and Procedural Background

On 16 July 2021 at The City Crown Court the Appellant (aged 21 at the date of conviction) was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. On 26 January 2022, before the same court, the Sentencing Judge imposed an extended determinate sentence of 12 years (8 years custodial term plus a 4-year extended period on licence). No separate penalty was imposed for a plea of guilty to possession of cannabis; the Appellant's conviction breached a suspended sentence imposed on 18 December 2019, which was activated in part as a concurrent 3-month term. The Appellant obtained leave to appeal the sentence.

Factual circumstances found at trial: prior to 9 December 2020 the Appellant and the Complainant exchanged aggressive messages about the Appellant's partner. The Appellant sent explicit threats and goading messages inviting the Complainant to attend the Appellant's address. On 9 December 2020 the Complainant entered the partner's address through an unlocked door, encountered the Appellant in a bedroom where the Appellant held two knives, and was stabbed in the upper left arm after the Appellant advanced and said "Have that". The Complainant sustained a deep arterial and nerve injury requiring emergency surgery and grafting; the injury produced permanent scarring, loss of sensation in two fingers, weakness and ongoing pain. The Appellant telephoned police the following day, was arrested and gave an account of self-defence which was rejected by the jury.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it was appropriate for the Sentencing Judge to make a finding that the Appellant was a "dangerous offender" and thereby impose an extended determinate sentence.
2. Whether the extended sentence was manifestly excessive or failed to reflect the Appellant's character, youth and progress in custody (i.e. whether personal mitigation had been insufficiently taken into account).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The imposition of an extended sentence was manifestly excessive because the offence and the Appellant's background did not justify a finding of dangerousness.
• The sentence failed properly to reflect the Appellant's character, his youth and the changes seen while in custody; personal mitigation warranted a lesser sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the Sentencing Judge's factual findings and reasoning and concluded they were unimpeachable. Key analytical steps, drawn from the opinion, were:

• The Sentencing Judge found the offence involved significant premeditation (culpability category A) and produced grave injury (harm category 2). This classification was not disputed on appeal.
• The Sentencing Judge relied on the trial evidence (including the messages and the events in the bedroom), the victim's injuries and statement, and pre-sentence reports which assessed the Appellant as posing a high risk of serious harm.
• The Sentencing Judge explicitly considered mitigation (youth, lack of previous violent offending) but concluded the Appellant demonstrated a pattern of resorting to physical revenge when feeling wronged; the offending was planned, calculated and involved deliberate use of knives.
• The court emphasised that a finding of dangerousness is an individual assessment that need not be supported by a prior history of violence and that the Sentencing Judge's conclusion—that extended supervision was necessary to mitigate the identified risk—was adequately founded on the material before her.
• The appellate court applied the principle from Howlett that it is rare to overturn such assessments made by a judge who conducted the trial and saw the parties, and found no basis to criticise the Sentencing Judge's analysis or conclusion.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court upheld the extended determinate sentence of 12 years (8 years custody + 4 years on licence) and the concurrent activation of 3 months from the previously suspended sentence.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the sentence as imposed remains in force. The court found no error in principle or manifest excess in the Sentencing Judge's assessment of dangerousness or in her weighing of aggravating and mitigating features. The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond applying existing principles (including Howlett) regarding appellate restraint in reassessing dangerousness.