Sandhu, R v

When sentencing attempted murder, the court must ensure a proportionate relationship between the custodial time to be served and the period that would have been served had the victim died. A completed murder should normally attract a substantially longer period to reflect the loss of life. The comparison is not governed by a mathematical formula and does not require automatic doubling of a determinate sentence because a murder minimum term is served in full. The court must assess the overall gravity of the attack, harm, aggravating features and mitigation.

The applicant was convicted by a jury of attempted murder after attacking his estranged wife with a knife and attempting to strangle her. She suffered serious lacerations, permanent scarring and psychological harm. Their children were present, and the seven-year-old daughter witnessed the attack and sought help.

Her Honour Judge Smith imposed 18 years’ imprisonment. She proceeded on the agreed basis that, had the victim died from the neck injury, the minimum term for murder would have been 15 years. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence, contending that the term was manifestly excessive and that the judge had wrongly used the murder minimum term as her sentencing basis.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court quashed the 18-year sentence and substituted a term of 15 years’ imprisonment.
2. The governing principle was that identified in R v Ford [2005] EWCA Crim 1358. For attempted murder, there must be a proportionate relationship between the period actually to be served and the period that would have been served had the attempt caused death. A completed murder should nevertheless normally result in a substantially longer period, because a life has been lost. The court also treated R v Clark [2007] EWCA Crim 2195 as illustrating that approach.
3. The comparison was not a mathematical exercise. The sentencing court was required to assess all the circumstances, including the gravity of the attack, the injuries and continuing harm, the effect on the children, and the absence of substantial premeditation. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 244, only half of the determinate term would be served in prison, subject to remand time. In the circumstances, a 15-year term, rather than 18 years, maintained the required proportionality with the assumed 15-year murder minimum term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave was allowed and the appeal against sentence succeeded. The sentence was reduced from 18 years to 15 years’ imprisonment.
• Trial court: The applicant was convicted by a jury of attempted murder and Her Honour Judge Smith imposed 18 years’ imprisonment.