Jeffrey, R. v

In sentencing for reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm, a sentence substantially exceeding two years may be justified where a loaded, potentially lethal firearm was repeatedly discharged in circumstances creating a foreseeable risk of devastating injury. The absence of an intention to injure, good character, remorse and a low risk of reoffending do not prevent a substantial custodial sentence where the recklessness is extreme.

Responsibility may properly be greater for the person who controls and deploys the weapon, even if a co-offender was generally in charge and encouraged the conduct.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Maidstone Crown Court to inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment.

While pursuing people whom he believed were poaching, the appellant fired five shots from a high-powered rifle from a moving Land Rover. The final shot entered the pursued vehicle and caused the victim catastrophic spinal injuries and paralysis.

The appellant appealed by leave of the single judge. He contended that a four-year notional sentence before credit for plea was too high, that the delay and his personal mitigation had insufficient weight, and that there was unjustified disparity with his co-accused. The central issue was whether the 32-month sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The offending involved recklessness of a high degree. The appellant fired a potentially lethal, high-velocity rifle five times during a pursuit. Although he did not intend injury, serious injury was a foreseeable consequence of that conduct. The catastrophic harm to the victim was therefore highly relevant to sentence.

3. The court accepted the appellant’s good character, remorse, guilty plea and low risk of reoffending. It nevertheless held that these factors did not make a four-year starting point excessive in the exceptional circumstances of the offence. The use of a loaded firearm distinguished the case from the usual section 20 offence and justified the substantial sentence.

4. The observations in R v Robertson [1998] 1 Cr App R(S) 21 that sentences over two years for a section 20 offence require careful scrutiny did not assist the appellant on these facts. They had to be read in the context of the weapon, the repeated shots and the foreseeable consequences.

5. There was no unjustified disparity with the co-accused. The co-accused was generally in charge and facilitated the shooting, but the appellant was an experienced adult who controlled, deployed and aimed the rifle. The sentencing judge was entitled to regard him as bearing the heaviest responsibility.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant’s sentence appeal was dismissed: [2008] EWCA Crim 2361.

• Crown Court at Maidstone: Following a guilty plea to inflicting grievous bodily harm, the appellant was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment on 6 June 2008.

• Earlier proceedings: At the first trial in May 2007, firearm counts were stayed at the end of the Crown’s case. The Crown successfully appealed and a fresh trial was ordered. At the second trial, the appellant and his co-accused were acquitted of the firearm counts.