F, R v

For a section 20 offence consisting of a single, unprovoked punch which unintentionally causes serious injury, sentence must reflect the gravity of the consequences while allowing for mitigation, including a guilty plea and psychiatric condition. Guidance from one-punch manslaughter sentencing may assist in setting the appropriate level.

Where custody may damage an offender’s mental health, the court must balance that consequence against protection of the public. A sentence need not be suspended where the assessed risk of further violence makes immediate public protection the weightier consideration.

The appellant, an inpatient receiving psychiatric treatment for paranoid schizophrenia and an antisocial personality disorder, pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. During an argument with another patient, he punched the complainant once. The complainant fell and suffered a fractured leg.

The sentencing judge imposed two and a half years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed with leave, contending that the term was manifestly excessive and that exceptional circumstances justified suspension because custody would destabilise his mental condition and could increase the future risk to the public.

1. Appeal allowed. The term of two and a half years’ imprisonment was too high for this section 20 offence. Although the attack was nasty and unprovoked and caused serious injury, it consisted of one punch and the fracture was an unintended consequence.

2. Mr Justice Owen treated R v Gratton, [2001] 2 Cr App R(S) 167, as sentencing guidance. That authority identified a 12-month starting point, after a guilty plea, in one-punch manslaughter cases. Taking account of the appellant’s psychiatric condition, the gravity of the attack and his guilty plea, the appropriate sentence was 15 months’ imprisonment.

3. The sentencing judge had to balance the likely harmful effect of custody on the appellant’s mental state against the need to protect the public from a risk of further violence. He had not erred in principle by giving greater weight to public protection. The circumstances did not warrant suspension.

4. The court substituted a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 15 months’ imprisonment.

• Sentencing court: following conviction on 17 June 2003 for an offence contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, sentenced the appellant on 31 July 2003 to two and a half years’ imprisonment.