Attorney General's Reference No 26 of 2004

A sentence for wounding with intent may be unduly lenient where a planned attack with a knife is carried out in the victim’s home, after the victim has been disarmed, and involves repeated blows to vulnerable parts of the body. Mitigation, including previous good character, low assessed risk of reoffending, family circumstances and the absence of serious permanent physical disability, must be taken into account. It did not justify a sentence at the bottom of the applicable range following a contested trial in this exceptionally serious case. On an Attorney-General’s reference, the increased sentence should reflect the double-jeopardy element inherent in resentencing.

The offender was convicted at Preston Crown Court of wounding with intent after he returned to the victim’s home with a knife during a dispute about money. He stabbed the victim in the neck and head, pursued him as he tried to escape, and then struck him with a walking stick. The victim suffered wounds requiring stitches, permanent scarring and continuing psychological and physical effects.

On 9 February 2004, the Crown Court imposed three years and nine months’ imprisonment. The Attorney General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether that sentence properly reflected the gravity of the offence after allowing for mitigation and double jeopardy.

1. Leave was granted and the reference succeeded. The court quashed the sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of six years’ imprisonment.

2. This was a very serious instance of wounding with intent. The attack occurred in the victim’s home. It involved premeditation because the offender left and returned with a weapon. The victim had been disarmed before the attack. The offender repeatedly attacked vulnerable parts of the victim’s body, including after the victim attempted to escape.

3. The court took account of the mitigating matters, including the offender’s previous good character, the absence of serious permanent physical disability, the assessed low risk of reoffending, possible difficulties in prison, and family circumstances. Those matters did not justify the original sentence after a trial.

4. The court stated that a sentence of at least seven years would have been expected at first instance. It reduced the substituted term to six years to reflect the double-jeopardy element inherent in an Attorney-General’s reference and the second sentencing process.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney-General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, quashed the Crown Court sentence and substituted six years’ imprisonment: [2004] EWCA Crim 1384.
• Preston Crown Court: Following conviction for wounding with intent, the offender was sentenced on 9 February 2004 to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.