Brown, R v

A custodial sentence, even when suspended, is not wrong in principle for a serious unprovoked punch which knocks the victim to the ground and initiates a wider assault causing serious and continuing injury. The sentencing court may take account of the offender’s limited role in later violence, but may also recognise that the initial assault created the circumstances in which it occurred.

Compensation is not excessive merely because subsequent assailants probably caused the greater part of the injury. It may reflect the serious and lasting consequences of an episode initiated by the offender.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Gloucester Crown Court to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He had punched the victim once, causing him to fall. Two other men then kicked the victim in the head. The appellant did not participate in that later violence.

The victim suffered serious and continuing physical and psychological effects. The appellant had one non-violent previous conviction, favourable references, employment, and a favourable pre-sentence report recommending a community order.

On 27 March 2008, the Crown Court imposed six months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months, 150 hours’ unpaid work, and £500 compensation. With leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against the suspended custodial sentence and the amount of compensation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the suspended sentence of six months’ imprisonment was not wrong in principle.
2. The appellant’s role was confined to the first punch. He neither joined in nor acted in concert with the two men who subsequently kicked the victim. That later violence was probably more responsible for the injuries. Nevertheless, the appellant’s unprovoked punch knocked the victim to the ground and initiated the episode in which the serious injuries were sustained.
3. The injuries could not properly be characterised as minor. The evidence showed serious and continuing consequences, including hospital treatment, breathing difficulties, headaches, nosebleeds, loss of confidence, and anxiety about going out at night.
4. The appellant’s favourable personal mitigation, low assessed risk of reoffending, employment, and lack of previous violence did not make imprisonment inappropriate in principle. A punch of this kind, delivered without warning, was capable of meriting immediate custody. The suspended custodial sentence was therefore within principle notwithstanding the appellant’s lesser role in the subsequent assault.
5. The £500 compensation order, while perhaps high, was not excessive. It was justified by the extent and continuing effect of the victim’s injuries and by the appellant’s responsibility for starting the episode.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2008] EWCA Crim 1770, dismissed the appellant’s sentence appeal.
• Gloucester Crown Court: On 27 March 2008, imposed six months’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months, 150 hours’ unpaid work, and £500 compensation for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.