Attorney General's Reference No.61 of 2007 (Madden)

A sentence for intentional wounding with a knife must properly reflect the gravity of an unprovoked public attack, the weapon used, the area targeted, any premeditation, and relevant previous violence. Good character, commendable military service and the age of a previous conviction may mitigate sentence, but they may not justify a sentence outside the proper range for a serious knife offence.

On an Attorney-General reference, where the original sentence is unduly lenient, the court may quash it and substitute the proper sentence. A modest allowance may be made for the offender’s double jeopardy.

The offender was convicted after trial at Bradford Crown Court of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Outside a public house, he used a 12-inch carving knife to inflict an unprovoked deep laceration to the victim’s nose.

On 3 May 2007, Miss Recorder Danji 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 the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness and aggravating features of the knife attack.

Decision

1. The court granted leave to refer the sentence. It held that three years’ imprisonment was unduly lenient, quashed that sentence and substituted five years and six months’ imprisonment.
2. The attack had four substantial aggravating features. It was to some extent premeditated; the offender had armed himself with a knife without lawful excuse; he struck the victim in the face with a downward blow; and the unprovoked attack occurred late at night in a public place. The offender also had a previous conviction for unlawful wounding in similar circumstances.
3. The court gave proper weight to mitigation. The offender had served honourably in the British Army, was the subject of excellent character references, and the earlier violence conviction was nearly ten years old. Those matters did not reduce the sentence to one capable of meeting the seriousness of this offence.
4. The court took account of Attorney-General’s Reference No 18 of 2002 (Christopher Simon Hughes), [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 9, which stated a normal bracket of three to eight years for section 18 knife offences. It also considered Attorney-General’s Reference No 138 of 2006, [2007] EWCA Crim 1077, as a sentencing comparison.
5. The proper sentence after trial was about six years. Allowing a small discount for the double jeopardy inherent in an Attorney-General reference, the substituted sentence was five years and six months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney-General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted five years and six months’ imprisonment.
• Bradford Crown Court: The offender was convicted on 21 March 2007 and, on 3 May 2007, was sentenced by Miss Recorder Danji to three years’ imprisonment for wounding with intent.