Attorney General's Reference No 130 of 2006

Where a sentence for a grave and unprovoked offence of violence is unduly lenient, the Court of Appeal may increase it on an Attorney General’s reference. Strong personal mitigation, good character, constructive behaviour in custody and the double-jeopardy consequences of an increase must be given real weight. They do not, however, preclude an increase where the seriousness of the offending requires it.

Fact-specific sentencing decisions provide limited assistance unless their facts materially illuminate the case under consideration.

At Cardiff Crown Court, Kate Elizabeth Jones was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. She had thrown a beer bottle during an unprovoked nightclub confrontation. It caused the first victim a serious skull fracture requiring major surgery. She also burned the second victim’s face with a lighted cigarette.

The judge imposed two years’ imprisonment for the section 18 offence and a concurrent nine months for the section 47 offence. The Attorney General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the mitigation and consequences of the reference justified leaving that sentence unchanged.

1. The court upheld the Attorney General’s reference and increased the sentence for causing grievous bodily harm with intent from two to three years’ imprisonment. The original two-year term was unduly lenient.

2. The violence was grave. The offender behaved aggressively while intoxicated, armed herself with a bottle, and threw it in an unprovoked attack. The jury’s verdict established that she intended really serious injury. The bottle caused a serious skull fracture, major surgery and permanent scarring. The subsequent use of a lighted cigarette against the second victim aggravated the overall seriousness.

3. The court gave full weight to the offender’s previous good character, unusually favourable references and positive custodial progress. It also considered the double-jeopardy effect of an increase on a young person serving a first custodial sentence, including the possible effect on release under home detention curfew arrangements. Those matters justified imposing the minimum increase thought appropriate, but could not avoid an increase.

4. The sentencing decisions put before the court did not materially assist. They were fact-specific and did not alter the assessment required by the exceptional violence in this case. The concurrent nine-month sentence for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm was not expressly varied.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held that the Crown Court sentence was unduly lenient and increased the sentence for the section 18 offence: [2007] EWCA Crim 147.

• Cardiff Crown Court: On 31 October 2006, imposed two years’ imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with intent and a concurrent nine months for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.