Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant, aged 41, pleaded guilty on 17 January 2025 in the Crown Court and was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 8 years and 8 months for one offence of assault with intent to rob and one offence of possessing an article with a blade or point; he appealed with leave of the Single Judge. [Para 27][Para 28]
The Appellant had a very extensive record: 49 convictions for 95 offences over 20 years, including offences against the person, property offences, theft-type offences, and firearms or offensive weapon offences. In 2019 he had been convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment; he was released on licence on 22 August 2024 after serving half that sentence. [Para 30][Para 31]
The offending occurred five days later, when the Appellant entered a pharmacy and, after returning for a consultation, grabbed the Pharmacist from behind and placed a hypodermic needle to his neck, threatening to infect him with AIDS unless given methadone. The Appellant fled when confronted by other customers and workmen, was identified on CCTV, arrested the next morning, and refused interview. He did not plead guilty at the first opportunity, but did plead guilty at the PTPH. [Para 34][Para 35][Para 36][Para 37]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence as one of high culpability with medium harm, and so used too high a starting point. [Para 41][Para 45]
- Whether the judge gave inadequate weight to mitigation, including the Appellant’s claimed inability to obtain appropriate medication and his personal mitigation. [Para 42][Para 45][Para 47]
- Whether the judge was entitled to find the Appellant dangerous, impose an extended licence period, and do so without a probation report. [Para 42][Para 47][Para 71]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The offence was wrongly categorised, because the guideline referred to a bladed article and did not expressly mention a needle. [Para 45][Para 50]
- Insufficient weight was given to the Appellant’s inability to obtain what he regarded as suitable medication. [Para 45][Para 60]
- The judge failed properly to reflect the Appellant’s personal mitigation, including suggested mental health issues and neuro-diversity. [Para 45][Para 47][Para 62]
- Too little weight was given to mitigation when fixing the extension period. [Para 47]
- No probation input was obtained on dangerousness. [Para 47]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v MacDowall [2024] EWCA Crim 294 |
A probation report on dangerousness is required only where it is necessary; if unnecessary, the judge is not obliged to obtain one. [Para 68][Para 69] |
The court applied that principle to hold that no probation report was needed here because the Appellant was plainly dangerous on the facts, making a report unnecessary. [Para 71] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
On categorisation, the court held that the judge was right to treat the offence as one of high culpability and medium harm. It rejected the submission that a needle could not be treated like a bladed article, saying that distinction was unrealistic and unworkable because both weapons cut into flesh and the guideline could not list every possible weapon. [Para 50][Para 51][Para 52][Para 54]
The court accepted that harm was category 2 and said the judge’s notional starting point of 6½ years fell within the guideline range. It held that the starting point properly reflected the limited mitigation and the aggravating features of the Appellant’s record and the fact that the offence was committed only five days after release on licence. [Para 41][Para 54][Para 55]
On mitigation, the court concluded that there was very little of it. It relied on the psychiatrist’s report, which said the medication given on release was an equivalent prescribed treatment and that there was no psychiatric defence or underlying psychotic illness, and it found no meaningful link between neuro-diversity and the offending. [Para 60][Para 62]
The court also held that the Appellant’s age and long experience of the criminal justice system meant that familiar mitigation had lost force, and that his lack of remorse was supported by his immediate reaction at sentence. It therefore rejected the argument that any significant mitigation had been overlooked. [Para 64][Para 65][Para 66]
On dangerousness, the court said a probation report is usually required but only where necessary. Applying MacDowall, it held that the threshold for dispensing with a report was crossed because the Appellant was “extremely dangerous” on any view, given the seriousness of the offence and its commission so soon after release for serious violence. [Para 68][Para 69][Para 70][Para 71]
The court further held that the 4-year extension period was not manifestly excessive. It rejected the suggestion that the absence of actual injury reduced the threat, saying the Appellant fled only because he was interrupted, not because he was harmless. [Para 72][Para 73]
Holding and Implications
The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The custodial term and the 4-year extended licence period therefore remained in force, and the decision had no effect other than upholding the sentence imposed on the Appellant. [Para 76]