Attorney-General's Reference No. 55 of 2007

A persistent knife attack on a lone police officer performing his duty is an offence of particular gravity. The absence of serious injury may reflect good fortune and protective equipment, rather than reduced culpability. A sentence must properly reflect the sustained threat, the use of the weapon and the risks created.

When increasing a sentence on an Attorney-General's reference, the court may moderate the substituted term because it is sentencing for a second time and the offender may reasonably have expected to be nearing release.

The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient a sentence of two years’ imprisonment for attempted wounding with intent. The offender, who had alcohol dependency and very limited previous convictions, pleaded guilty shortly before trial.

While drunk, he armed himself with a kitchen knife and repeatedly pursued and attacked a lone uniformed police officer who had come to arrest him for an assault on his wife. He struck and thrust the knife at the officer, whose stab vest prevented serious injury. The question was whether the two-year sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, what substituted sentence was appropriate.

1. Reference allowed and sentence increased. Leave was granted. The sentence of two years’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with a term of three years and six months.

2. The offence was exceptionally serious. It involved a sustained and escalating knife attack on a lone police officer acting lawfully in the course of duty. The offender armed himself, persisted despite attempts to deter him, chased the officer and made two knife attacks. The lack of serious injury resulted from good fortune and the officer’s stab vest, not from any lesser seriousness in the offending.

3. Attacks on police officers are particularly grave, and knife attacks are likewise grave. The offender’s limited record and subsequent efforts to address alcohol dependence were relevant mitigation, but did not bring the proper sentence within the range represented by two years.

4. On a trial, the appropriate sentence would have been at least about six years. Even allowing full credit for the guilty plea, a sentence below four years could not properly have been passed below. The court reduced the substituted term to three years and six months because it was sentencing for a second time and the offender had reason to expect that his original sentence was nearing its end.

5. The 212 days already served were to count for the purposes of section 240.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney-General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held that the two-year sentence was unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted three years and six months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court: Imposed two years’ imprisonment following a late guilty plea to attempted wounding with intent.