Attorney General Reference No 119 of 2004

On a reference under Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence may be left undisturbed even if it is capable of being characterised as unduly lenient. The Court must take account of the double-jeopardy discount required when an offender is sentenced again. It may also give weight to substantial rehabilitative progress made during the original custodial term and to other exceptional personal consequences of the offending.

The sentencing assessment remains fact-sensitive. The absence of premeditation and serious self-inflicted injury may reduce the appropriate term, while the number of victims and the gravity and permanence of their injuries aggravate it.

The Attorney General obtained leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient a four-year sentence imposed at Bristol Crown Court on 6 September 2004.

The offender had pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, two counts of causing grievous bodily harm, and two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. A corrosive drain-cleaning fluid had been thrown at a man outside a public house and injured 27 other people. Three victims suffered serious injuries, including permanent scarring.

The central issue was whether the four-year sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, whether the Court should increase it.

1. Leave was granted, but the Court did not interfere with the four-year sentence. The Court considered that the sentence expected in the Crown Court after a guilty plea would have been about five years’ imprisonment. The four-year term was therefore lenient and might have been unduly lenient.

2. The sentencing assessment had to reflect both aggravation and mitigation. The deliberate use of highly corrosive acid, the large number of victims, serious injuries and permanent scarring were grave aggravating features. The absence of premeditation, the offender’s lack of knowledge of the precise corrosive capacity of the liquid, and her own severe and permanent facial injuries justified a lower term than might otherwise have been appropriate.

3. Even assuming that the original sentence was unduly lenient, an increase was not justified. Resentencing would engage the double-jeopardy principle and require a discount from the sentence otherwise appropriate. The offender had also made genuine and substantial progress in custody towards addressing alcohol misuse, anger and other underlying problems. Her own permanent disfigurement was a continuing personal consequence of the offending.

4. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the Recorder remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was entertained after leave was granted. The Court declined to interfere with the sentence.

• Bristol Crown Court: On 6 September 2004, the Recorder imposed a total sentence of four years’ imprisonment.