Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

On 23 December 2023 the Appellant, then a serving prisoner accommodated in the Segregation Unit at The Prison, damaged his cell and armed himself with a removed metal emergency bell panel. When officers entered his cell to prevent further damage the Appellant struck Victim 1 to the eye area with the metal panel, then struck Victim 2 and Victim 3 during the same incident. Victim 1 sustained a laceration beneath his eye, bruising and tenderness to the lower eye socket and was taken to The Hospital. Victim 2 and Victim 3 suffered bruising, swelling and pain to the top of the head; Victim 2 experienced headaches for several days. The Appellant attempted to bite and spat at an officer while being restrained. The Appellant refused interview, maintained he had been threatened and denied some acts in his Defence Statement.

Following trial at The Crown Court the Appellant was convicted on 18 September 2025 of: one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (count 1) and two counts of assault on an emergency worker (counts 2 and 3). On 10 November 2025 he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on count 3 and a consecutive extended sentence of 5 years (comprising 4 years' custodial term and 1 year extended licence) on count 1; a 9 months' imprisonment sentence on count 2 was ordered to run concurrently. The Appellant appealed the sentence with leave of the Single Judge. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) by Judge Coulson, Judge Cutts and Judge Lucking; the judgment below was delivered by Judge Cutts.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in departing as far as he did from the guideline sentencing range for each offence, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.
2. Whether the trial judge wrongly failed to apply the principle of totality when ordering consecutive sentences for counts 1 and 3.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The overall sentence was manifestly excessive because the judge stepped too far outside the guideline ranges for each offence.
• The judge erred in ordering consecutive sentences for counts 1 and 3 and failed to apply totality; the incident was of short duration with a small number of blows and relatively minor injuries, so the sentences should have been structured to reflect the single incident.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court agreed with the trial judge that the offences were serious and that categorisation under the relevant sentencing guideline was correct: the Appellant had manipulated events to provoke entry to his cell, armed himself and attacked three officers acting in the course of duty. The court accepted the trial judge's view that the Appellant's previous violent record and lack of mitigation justified a custodial sentence of some length.

However, the Court of Appeal concluded the overall sentence was manifestly excessive because all assaults occurred in one short episode and the same aggravating factors applied to each assault. The court held that this case was a paradigm for concurrent sentencing with count 1 treated as the lead offence and an uplift applied to reflect the additional assaults, or, if consecutive sentences were imposed, the trial judge should nevertheless have considered and applied the totality principle by making a downward adjustment. The trial judge erred in declining any downward adjustment.

The court assessed a just and proportionate total determinate sentence as 3 years and 6 months: placing count 1 at the top of the category 2A range (a notional 2 years 6 months) and applying a 12-month uplift to reflect the overall aggravating features and the additional assaults. The court also considered statutory eligibility for an extended sentence: because the Appellant had not been previously convicted of an offence falling within Schedule 14 of the Sentencing Act, and because the just and proportionate determinate term was under 4 years, an extended sentence was not available.

The Court of Appeal therefore quashed the sentences imposed below and substituted determinate sentences totalling 3½ years, all to run concurrently.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

Direct effect on the parties:

• The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, quashed the sentences imposed below and substituted the following determinate sentences: count 1 — 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment; counts 2 and 3 — 6 months' imprisonment each; all sentences to run concurrently, resulting in an overall sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment.
• An extended sentence was held not to be available because the Appellant had no prior conviction listed in Schedule 14 of the Sentencing Act and the substituted determinate term was below 4 years.

No new legal precedent was created; the decision applied established sentencing principles, including the requirement to apply the totality guideline when structuring multiple sentences.