Attorney General's Reference Nos. 49 of 2008

For a serious knife wounding, substantial mitigation arising from youth, remorse and a difficult background may reduce sentence but cannot displace the need for severe punishment. A youth who carries a knife and uses it during an altercation, causing grave and sustained injuries, should expect a significant custodial sentence. The sentencing court must give proper weight to public protection and deterrence, particularly where the victim was attacked as part of a group and the offender has a previous conviction for violence.

The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient a sentence imposed at the Crown Court at Harrow.

The 16-year-old offender pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. During a group altercation outside a food shop, he used a knife to stab the victim six times. One wound penetrated the chest cavity, caused a collapsed lung and required a blood transfusion.

The sentencing judge imposed a 12-month detention and training order. The central issue was whether that sentence was unduly lenient despite the offender’s youth, remorse, guilty plea and troubled background.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The 12-month detention and training order was unduly lenient and the sentence was increased to reflect a custodial term of three years.

2. The offence was exceptionally grave. The offender carried a kitchen knife and used it repeatedly, inflicting six wounds to the victim’s torso. The chest wound penetrated the rib cage, caused internal bleeding and a collapsed lung, and required a blood transfusion. The attack was sustained, occurred in a group setting and was committed against a person providing a service to the public.

3. The court gave full weight to the offender’s age, difficult upbringing, guilty plea, remorse and capacity to benefit from support. It also accepted that he had not initiated the original dispute and that the wounding was not premeditated. Those features did not justify the weight the sentencing judge had placed on them when set against the gravity of the violence, the deliberate carrying and use of a knife, and the offender’s previous conviction for violence.

4. Referring to R v Blizard and Povey (21 May 2008), the court reaffirmed that weapons carried in public create a serious threat because trivial incidents may escalate into grave violence. Those who carry knives and then use them to wound must expect severe punishment.

5. The court treated the offence as a grave crime for the purposes of section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. A significant increase in custody was therefore required.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — granted leave on the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held the sentence unduly lenient, and increased it to a custodial term of three years.
• Crown Court at Harrow — on 27 June 2008, imposed a 12-month detention and training order for wounding with intent.