Summary of Judgment — Court of Appeal, Criminal Division

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 25, appealed with leave against an extended sentence imposed by Judge Rafferty in the Crown Court at The City. Sentence was passed on 26 August 2025 after the Appellant pleaded guilty on 27 May 2025 to: wounding with intent (count 4); possession of a bladed or sharply pointed article in a public place without good reason or lawful authority (count 1); and two counts of theft (counts 2 and 3). A further charge of attempted wounding with intent (count 5) remained on the file. The Crown Court imposed an extended sentence of 19 years in total, comprising a custodial term of 14 years and a 5-year extended licence; concurrent sentences were imposed on the other counts (2 years on count 1; 1 year on each of counts 2 and 3). The Appellant had a prior record including convictions from age 15 to age 19. The offending arose in the early hours of 26 April 2025 when the Appellant produced and used a machete during a car journey, stabbing the Victim through the lower leg, taking jewellery, and causing catastrophic injury resulting in amputation of the lower part of the Victim's leg. The Appellant handed himself in, did not answer police interview questions, but entered early guilty pleas and received full credit for plea. A pre-sentence report recorded substance misuse, possible ADHD, impulsivity, entrenched anti-social and pro-criminal attitudes, low maturity and a high risk of serious harm; character references described supportive family relationships.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the custodial term (14 years after full credit for plea; 21 years before credit) was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred by "double counting" factors of culpability and harm when moving outside the Sentencing Council guideline range for a category A1 offence.
3. Whether the sentencing judge failed properly to reflect the Appellant's remorse, age and immaturity in the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The custodial term was manifestly excessive and out of proportion to the offending.
• The sentencing judge had double counted the factors of harm and culpability that placed the offence in category A1, improperly taking the notional starting point outside the guideline range.
• The sentencing judge failed adequately to reflect mitigation including remorse, youth (immaturity) and other personal mitigation; the judge did not quantify the reduction for mitigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Baker (delivering the judgment) reviewed the facts, sentencing material and the grounds of appeal. He accepted the Crown Court's classification of count 4 as a category A1 offence under the Sentencing Guideline and noted counsel for the Appellant had accepted that categorisation. The court analysed the three grounds of appeal in turn:

1. Double counting: The court held that it was not impermissible double counting to assess whether the facts that placed the offence in category A1 were such extreme examples of culpability and/or harm as to justify a sentence above the top of the category range. The court concluded the sentencing judge properly applied the guideline language and that the nature of the weapon and the catastrophic, life-changing injury justified moving outside the A1 range.
2. Mitigation (remorse, age, immaturity): The court noted the sentencing remarks referred to remorse and character references and that the pre-sentence report (including immaturity) was considered. Although the judge did not state a notional sentence absent mitigation, the court observed that is not required. The real question was whether the 21-year term before plea credit was unreasonably long; the court found the judge had given proper weight to mitigation.
3. Manifest excessiveness of the 21‑year notional term (and 14 years after plea credit): The court considered aggravating features (previous convictions, steps to impede medical attention, intoxication, danger posed to the Victim's Friend) and the related thefts. Deterrence was also an appropriate consideration. The court concluded a custodial term of 21 years before credit was consistent with proper weight to mitigation and that, after full credit for plea, a 14-year custodial term was not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Direct effect: The Crown Court sentence is upheld — an extended sentence of 19 years in total with a custodial term of 14 years and a 5-year extended licence remains in place. The court found no error in the sentencing judge's approach to categorisation, application of the guideline to justify a sentence above the category A1 range, or assessment of mitigation. The opinion does not purport to lay down new precedent; it upholds the sentence in this factual context and notes no broader legal change.