Summary of Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was tried at the Crown Court and, on 24 July 2025, was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of wounding with intent of a friend (count 2 and count 4) and convicted of wounding his mother with intent (count 1). The Appellant had pleaded guilty on 4 April 2025 to having a bladed article in a public place contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (count 3). On 25 September 2025 the sentencing judge imposed an aggregate term of 15 years' imprisonment (15 years on count 4; concurrent terms of 6 years 6 months and 1 year on counts 1 and 3 respectively). The Appellant appealed against sentence with leave.

Briefly, the factual matrix in the sentencing evidence: the Appellant lived at a property belonging to his mother. A dispute over the back-door key culminated on 16 January 2025 in the Appellant stabbing his mother in the face with a kitchen knife. He then left the house; a friend followed and the Appellant stabbed that friend multiple times in the street causing life-threatening and permanent injuries. The friend required extensive treatment and physiotherapy and has long-term impairment; the mother has a permanent scar.

Psychiatric and pre-sentence reports were prepared: the court received a psychiatric report identifying autistic traits (but not meeting criteria for ASD), previous substance use history, and no clear mental or personality disorder. The probation report assessed a medium risk of further violence absent intervention and recorded positive character references and the Appellant's stated intention to address offending-related needs.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the total sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge failed adequately to take account of the Appellant's mitigating features (including psychiatric findings, youthful emotional maturity and good character).
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in selecting too high a starting point for the leading offence and in applying the principle of totality.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The total sentence of 15 years was manifestly excessive.
• The judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigation (psychiatric traits, prior good character, remorse, age-relative emotional maturity).
• The judge adopted too high a starting point and insufficiently applied the totality principle when combining concurrent sentences.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeal reviewed the sentencing judge's approach to culpability, harm and mitigation. It accepted that the knife was a highly dangerous weapon and that the harm classifications adopted by the judge were correct: category 1 harm for the friend (count 4) and category 2 for the mother (count 1). The court set out the sentencing starting points and ranges: for a section 18 offence in category 1A a starting point of 12 years (range 10–16 years); for category 2A a starting point of 7 years (range 6–10 years).

The court agreed with the sentencing judge that the features of count 4 (life‑threatening neck wounds and permanent injury substantially affecting daily activities and work) justified moving to the top of the category 1A range. The court applied section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (consideration of harm caused and foreseeably caused) and observed that the neck wounds carried a serious risk of death; the blow to the mother's face was also significant.

On mitigation, the Court of Appeal held that the psychiatric report did not diagnose a mental or personality disorder that would materially reduce culpability or make custody disproportionately onerous. The psychiatrist had noted autistic traits but had not established that those traits materially reduced culpability; the court referenced R v Jacobs in that respect. The sentencing judge's own observations supported a limited allowance for emotional immaturity (assessed as similar to a person in their early twenties) consistent with R v Clarke. The judge had also taken into account previous good character, remorse and the Appellant summoning assistance.

The court then assessed whether the sentencing judge failed to apply the totality principle or adopted an excessive starting point. Having reviewed the judge's detailed reasoning and adjustments for mitigation, the Court of Appeal concluded the judge had made an adequate overall allowance for mitigation and had properly applied proportionality and totality principles.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's challenge to sentence and upheld the aggregate 15‑year custodial sentence (15 years on the lead count with concurrent lesser terms on the other counts).

Implications: The direct effect is that the sentence imposed by the Crown Court stands. The court recorded that the psychiatric observations did not warrant a substantial reduction in sentence and that no error in principle or disproportionate application of totality was shown; no new precedent was established beyond the court's application of existing authorities and statutory guidance.

This summary has anonymised personal names and entity identifiers consistent with the source opinion and contains only information drawn from the provided judgment.