McGhee, R. v

A sentence exceeding two years’ imprisonment for wounding contrary to section 20 requires close scrutiny to determine whether the particular facts provide real justification. There is no two-year ceiling. The sentencing court must balance the seriousness of the assault with the offender’s personal mitigation when fixing the post-trial starting point, and then give appropriate credit for a guilty plea. Multiple blows with a glass and kicks to a victim on the ground can materially aggravate the offending. Earlier sentencing decisions may require cautious use where the current sentencing climate has changed.

The appellant pleaded guilty at York Crown Court to wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861. He had attacked another customer in a public house with a glass and kicked him while he was on the ground. The victim suffered lacerations to both sides of his head.

On 4 October 2007, HHJ Hoffman imposed 33 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed with the leave of the Single Judge. The central issue was whether that sentence gave proper weight to the seriousness of the attack, the appellant’s mitigation, and his guilty plea.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of 33 months’ imprisonment and substituted 27 months.
2. The appellant’s offending was serious. He struck the victim at least twice while holding a glass, with the later blow or blows made using broken glass, and then kicked the victim twice while he was on the ground. Those features made the case materially more serious than the single-blow glassing cases relied upon.
3. The court nevertheless applied the general guidance in Robertson (1998) 1 C app R (S) 21. A sentence over two years for an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 requires careful examination to ensure that the facts truly justify it. That guidance does not impose a two-year maximum.
4. HHJ Hoffman had correctly distinguished Robertson and Singleton (1998) 1 Cr App R (S) 199 because each involved one blow with a glass. The court also observed that Singleton might not be decided in the same way in the current sentencing climate.
5. Balancing the seriousness of the assault against the appellant’s lack of relevant convictions, good character evidence, low assessed risk of reoffending, remorse and willingness to plead guilty to the section 20 offence, the proper sentence after a trial was about three and a half years. Full credit for the guilty plea reduced that sentence to 27 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 27 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at York — on 4 October 2007, sentenced the appellant to 33 months’ imprisonment after his guilty plea to wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861.