Attorney General Reference No 20 of 2004

A sentence for wounding with intent is unduly lenient where it fails adequately to reflect a planned, wholly unprovoked group attack using weapons against an unarmed victim, particularly where the victim suffers permanent and profoundly disabling injury. In such a case, following a contested trial, a sentence of at least 12 years’ imprisonment would ordinarily have been expected.

When substituting a sentence on an Attorney-General reference, the court must allow for double jeopardy and may give limited weight to relevant personal mitigation. Those matters may justify a substituted sentence below the sentence otherwise appropriate, but do not remove the need for the sentence to mark the offence’s gravity.

The offender was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of wounding with intent after a trial. He had armed himself with a steering lock and joined a knife-armed associate in an unprovoked attack on an unarmed victim. The victim sustained severe brain injury and was left permanently and profoundly disabled.

On 26 January 2004, the Crown Court imposed five years’ imprisonment. The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer that sentence as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness and aggravating features of the offence.

1. The court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held that the five-year sentence was unduly lenient, quashed it, and substituted nine years’ imprisonment.

2. The offending was exceptionally grave. The offender instigated and planned a joint attack, armed himself with a steering lock, and acted alongside an associate carrying a knife. The victim was unarmed and the attack was wholly unprovoked. The resulting injuries were extremely severe, permanent and devastating to the victim and his family.

3. Those aggravating features required a substantially longer sentence. The court stated that, after a trial, it would have expected a sentence of at least 12 years’ imprisonment in the Crown Court.

4. The court took account of the offender’s previous good character, personal mitigation, and evidence concerning the effect of imprisonment on him and his children. It also applied the double-jeopardy allowance required because it was sentencing the offender for a second time. Those matters justified a substituted term below the sentence otherwise expected, but could not sustain the original five-year term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2004] EWCA Crim 2723, the court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, found the sentence unduly lenient, and substituted nine years’ imprisonment.
• Southwark Crown Court: Following conviction after trial for wounding with intent, the offender was sentenced on 26 January 2004 to five years’ imprisonment.