Factual and Procedural Background
On 5 January 2026, the Appellant changed his plea to guilty at the Crown Court at The City to an offence of unlawful wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. On 7 January 2026 he was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment and, with leave, appealed that sentence. A Co-accused pleaded guilty earlier and was sentenced on 7 January to 10 months' imprisonment.
The offence occurred on the evening of 24 July 2025 in The Boulevard, The City, an area where homeless people congregate. The Victim, a chef, had taken food to a homeless friend and intervened when the Appellant and Co-accused were shouting at another man. The Appellant assaulted the Victim; accounts differed as to mechanism (a blow to the head, or a push into a wall). In a basis of plea the Appellant said he had no memory but accepted he pushed the Victim causing a fall and recklessly causing injury.
The Victim sustained two lacerations to the side of his head requiring stitches, fractures to the left jaw, cheekbone and eye socket, and broken bones on either side of the nose. He was on blood-thinning medication, bled heavily, had a CT scan and received wound care and a tetanus booster before discharge. An impact statement described substantial physical pain, ongoing numbness and difficulty chewing on the left, blurred vision in one eye for months, psychological effects including anxiety, avoidance of the area and loss of sleep and income.
The Appellant (aged 34) had two previous convictions for three offences: in 2020 he received a suspended sentence order for affray and possession of an imitation firearm in a public place; in 2021 the operational period was extended for failure to comply.
At sentence the Recorder placed the offence within category 2C of the relevant guideline (culpability C, harm category assessed as 2—described as "grave") and adopted a notional sentence after trial of 22 months, reduced to 20 months for plea credit. The Appellant appeals on grounds that the harm was miscategorised and that the uplift applied was excessive.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Recorder erred in categorising the harm as "grave" (harm category 2) rather than as "really serious" (harm category 3) under the sentencing guideline.
- Whether the Recorder applied an excessive uplift when balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, rendering the 20‑month sentence manifestly excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Attorney [Last Name] submitted the Recorder erred in finding the Victim's injuries to be "grave"; they should have been categorised as "really serious" (category 3)—relying on R v Hayes and Mack [2025] EWCA Crim 750 as comparable authority.
- There was an evidential dispute as to causation; the Recorder should have proceeded on the basis that the Appellant most likely caused only the laceration to the head rather than all injuries.
- The Recorder applied too large an uplift when balancing aggravation and mitigation—contending intoxication alone (and limited relevance of older convictions given mental health at that time) did not justify the uplift applied.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Hayes and Mack [2025] EWCA Crim 750 |
Authority relied on as a comparator for harm categorisation where fractured eye socket, open eyebrow wound, bruising and a haematoma were held to amount to "really serious" rather than "grave" harm (category 3). |
The Recorder had regard to the authority but found the facts distinguishable. This Court held Hayes was of limited assistance and that the instant injuries were not analogous; Hayes did not determine the outcome here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by addressing causation, harm categorisation, culpability, aggravation/mitigation and the resulting sentence.
On causation the Appellant could not assist (no memory). The Victim's account of a blow and a witness account of a push were not mutually exclusive; the Recorder was entitled to infer the Appellant was responsible for both sets of injuries occurring in a short incident after the Victim intervened. There was no basis to limit sentence to only the head wound.
On harm, the Court accepted the Victim suffered really serious physical and significant psychological harm. The Court found the injuries did not quite meet the guideline understanding of "grave" harm, but the combination of physical and psychological effects placed the case at the very top end of category 3 (really serious) rather than in category 2.
The Appellant's culpability was assessed at the top of category C (no weapon used but a completely unprovoked assault on a "good Samaritan"). The Court emphasised that sentencing guidelines are not tramlines and that where culpability and harm combine they may take an offence outside the otherwise appropriate bracket; here the nature of the injuries and the unprovoked nature of the assault justified treating the offence as above the ordinary category 3C guideline range.
Aggravating factors included significant intoxication and prior convictions for public disorder; mitigation was limited. Balancing these factors, the Court concluded the Recorder's notional sentence and application of plea credit produced a sentence that was not manifestly excessive.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED
Direct effect: The sentence of 20 months' imprisonment (after plea credit) imposed by the Recorder is upheld.
No broader legal change was established by this decision; the Court applied existing guideline principles to the facts and found the sentence was within the permissible range.