Powell, R. v

Sentencing for possession and deployment of a knife must reflect the actual character of the offending. A court should not apply the sentencing approach for habitual knife-carrying merely because a knife was used in a serious and frightening isolated incident.

A calculated acquisition and deployment of a knife ordinarily requires immediate custody. However, the absence of the aggravating features identified in comparable authorities, an early guilty plea, remorse and good character may justify a materially lower sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Canterbury Crown Court to assault and possessing an offensive weapon after taking a kitchen knife from an Asda display and placing it at a colleague's throat during an episode of jealousy.

She had no previous convictions, pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and showed remorse. The sentencing judge imposed two years' imprisonment for the weapon offence, concurrent with six months for the assault, treating the case as part of the knife crime with which courts were particularly concerned.

The appellant appealed against sentence with the leave of the single judge. The issue was whether the sentence gave excessive weight to aggravating features and insufficient weight to the particular circumstances and mitigation.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent of sentence. The Court quashed the concurrent sentences of two years and six months, and substituted 18 months' imprisonment for the offensive-weapon offence and three months' imprisonment concurrently for the assault.

2. Immediate custody was necessary. The appellant deliberately took and deployed a knife, causing extreme fear to the complainant and anxiety to witnesses. The danger was illustrated by the injuries sustained by staff who disarmed her. A community sentence was therefore inappropriate.

3. However, the judge placed the case in the wrong sentencing category. It was not an instance of habitual knife-carrying with its associated public-safety risk. The appellant had not carried the knife intending to use it should an opportunity arise. Nor had she used it with a clear intention to cause fear, although fear was the obvious consequence.

4. The offence also lacked the aggravating features identified in R v Pouton and Celaire [2002] EWCA Crim 2487. Mitigation included the earliest guilty plea, early remorse, good character, absence of previous convictions for violence or weapons, and the accepted view that the incident would not have gone further.

5. A three-year starting point was consequently too high. An overall sentence of 18 months properly reflected both the seriousness of the knife offence and the mitigating circumstances.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence in part and substituted an overall sentence of 18 months' imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 18 December 2008 imposed two years' imprisonment for possessing an offensive weapon and six months concurrently for assault, following guilty pleas.