Newton, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 7 December 2024, at around 11:40 pm, an attack occurred inside a public house when the Defendant discharged a substance believed to be ammonia towards patrons, including the Complainant, causing eye irritation, vomiting and a small inflamed patch on the Complainant's cheek. CCTV captured the Defendant squirting the substance at multiple people; around 50 people were present and several fled in distress. The Complainant was treated at The Hospital; no further treatment was required. The Defendant was identified, chased and arrested on 11 December after resisting police; officers attempted a taser and then used a baton. After arrest the Defendant was found in possession of cocaine and cannabis; those offences were charged as counts 3 and 4 and were committed while the Defendant was on bail.

On 16 April 2025 at The Court at The City, following pleas of guilty, Judge Herrmann sentenced the Defendant on count 1 (applying a corrosive fluid with intent, contrary to section 29 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861) to an extended sentence of seven years (custodial element 54 months; extended licence 30 months). Concurrent one-month terms were imposed for counts 3 and 4. The Defendant renewed an application for leave to appeal the sentence in a non-counsel application after refusal by a single judge; the appellate panel comprised Judge Dingemans, Judge Soole and Judge O'Farrell, with Judge O'Farrell delivering judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Judge erred in finding that the harm sustained by the Complainant amounted to grievous bodily harm (GBH).
2. Whether the Judge failed accurately to reflect the level of harm within the sentencing process.
3. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
4. Whether, subject to the above, the type of sentence imposed (an extended sentence) was wrong in principle.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Attorney McNicholas submitted that the Judge did not explain why the injury amounted to GBH rather than actual bodily harm (ABH), given the mildness, small size and limited medical intervention for the burn; the impact was minimal and transient.
• It was argued that citation of R v Ardic [2019] EWCA Crim 1836 to justify use of the section 18 guideline was misplaced because the factual account did not support a finding of GBH, making the sentence likely manifestly excessive.
• Reliance was placed on the fact count 2 (ABH) was an available lesser alternative, though the panel noted that count 2 was an alternative and the Defendant had pleaded guilty to the section 29 offence.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The Prosecution maintained that the offending justified analogy with the section 18 guideline and that the Judge was entitled to treat the corrosive substance as a highly dangerous weapon equivalent, with significant potential to cause really serious harm.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began from the premise that there is no specific sentencing guideline for section 29 offences and that the overarching principles require consideration of statutory maxima, appellate sentencing judgments and guidelines for analogous offences. The court accepted that, although the section 18 guideline is not strictly applicable, it can be applied by analogy after careful adjustment for differences.

The court observed that harm in sentencing extends beyond actual injury to intended or foreseeable harm; double counting of intended harm was to be avoided but did not preclude considering the high potential harm of corrosive substances in a public place. The court agreed with precedent emphasising the distinctive destructive quality of corrosives and the high risk they pose.

Applying that framework to the facts, the court found the Judge was entitled to treat the corrosive substance as a highly dangerous weapon equivalent and to adopt by analogy the section 18 guideline's culpability assessment (high culpability A). Given the public setting, number of victims and the potential for severe harm, it was reasonable to adopt the lowest harm category (category 3) by analogy. The starting point for a category 3A offence was five years' custody (range four to seven years). The custodial element of 54 months (after 25% guilty plea credit from an assumed trial sentence of 72 months) was within that range and not excessive.

The court also accepted the Judge's dangerousness finding as supported by the Defendant's antecedents and the pre-sentence report, justifying imposition of an extended sentence.

Holding and Implications

LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal the sentence. The direct effect is that the sentence imposed by Judge Herrmann (extended sentence of seven years: custodial element 54 months; extended licence 30 months) remains in force. The opinion did not purport to establish a new binding precedent beyond affirming that careful analogy to the section 18 guideline may be appropriate for section 29 offences in circumstances demonstrating high potential harm; no new rule was laid down.