Attorney General's Reference No. 36 OF 2005

A sentence for intentional grievous bodily harm inflicted in a frenzied and persistent attack with a potentially lethal weapon must reflect the gravity of the violence, the serious injury caused, and the absence of any excuse. On the circumstances of this case, a sentence of at least six years’ imprisonment was appropriate before mitigation.

On an Attorney General reference, the court may substitute a higher sentence where the original sentence is unduly lenient. It must nevertheless allow for double jeopardy and relevant mitigation when fixing the substituted term.

The offender pleaded guilty, at a late stage, to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. He used an iron bar to make a sustained attack on the victim’s head, face and upper body, causing severe and potentially lasting injuries.

At Truro Crown Court, the Recorder imposed three years’ imprisonment. The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether that sentence properly reflected the seriousness of the offence.

1. The court granted leave, upheld the Attorney General’s reference, and substituted a sentence of five years’ imprisonment for the Recorder’s sentence of three years.

2. The offence was exceptionally grave. It involved a persistent and frenzied assault with an iron bar, a weapon capable of killing. The blows were directed at the victim’s head, face and upper body while he was trapped in his car. The victim suffered severe injuries, continuing pain and disability, and a serious loss of quality of life.

3. The attack was wholly unprovoked from the victim’s perspective. Even if the offender had been told that his girlfriend had been assaulted, that could provide no excuse for the violence. Serious injury was inevitable, so a substantial custodial sentence was required.

4. The court held that an offence of this kind should attract at least six years’ imprisonment, having regard to the circumstances. The Recorder therefore erred in imposing three years.

5. In setting the substituted term, the court allowed for the double-jeopardy element inherent in increasing a sentence on an Attorney General reference. It also gave weight to the offender’s lack of previous convictions for violence and his eventual guilty plea. Those considerations justified a substituted term of five years rather than six.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held the three-year sentence unduly lenient, and substituted five years’ imprisonment.
• Truro Crown Court: On 10 March 2005, imposed three years’ imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with intent.