Attorney General's Reference No 29 of 2004

When increasing an unduly lenient sentence for wounding with intent, the court must ensure that the sentence for that offence properly reflects its seriousness. The fact that other offences properly attract consecutive terms, and the resulting need to consider totality, does not justify a sentence below the proper level for the principal offence. On the facts, a knife attack involving subterfuge, committed while on bail and by an offender with relevant previous convictions, required at least three years’ imprisonment for the section 18 offence. Credit for a guilty plea, remorse and the limited use of the weapon remained relevant, but did not reduce the proper sentence below that level.

The Attorney General referred as unduly lenient a sentence imposed by a Recorder after the offender pleaded guilty to wounding with intent, common assault and burglary.

The Recorder imposed consecutive terms of 18 months for wounding with intent, 18 months for burglary and six months for common assault, making three and a half years’ imprisonment. The wounding followed a confrontation in which the offender used a knife to slash the victim’s face after appearing to offer a handshake. The offences were committed while the offender was on bail for the burglary.

The central issue was whether the total sentence could stand despite the individual sentence for wounding with intent.

1. The reference was allowed. The court granted leave to refer and substituted a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

2. The Recorder had failed to give proper effect to the seriousness of the wounding with intent. The attack was aggravated by its devious circumstances, the offender’s use of a knife to slash the victim’s face, the fact that it followed earlier threatening conduct, and the fact that the offender was on bail. His previous convictions included two offences of causing grievous bodily harm.

3. The court accepted that the offender was entitled to credit for his guilty plea and associated remorse. It also noted that the knife was used for one blow, rather than in a sustained attack with the weapon. Those matters did not make a sentence below three years’ imprisonment for the section 18 offence proper.

4. The offences were properly the subject of consecutive sentences. However, totality did not permit the sentence for the section 18 offence to understate its seriousness. Even allowing for double jeopardy on an Attorney General’s reference, the proper substituted sentence for that offence was three years’ imprisonment. Combined with the consecutive sentences for burglary and common assault, this produced a total of five years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—on an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave and substituted a total sentence of five years’ imprisonment.
• Recorder—following guilty pleas, imposed consecutive sentences totalling three and a half years’ imprisonment on 13 February 2004.