Abdille, R v

A guideline starting point for a first offender does not mechanically determine sentence where the offence has substantial aggravating features. An unpremeditated single punch causing serious, but not particularly grave, injury may nonetheless justify a custodial term well above the guideline’s lowest range. The court must also give proper credit for a timely guilty plea.

When activating a suspended sentence, compliance with its requirements is relevant but not conclusive. Full activation may be appropriate where subsequent offending shows that supervision has not achieved its rehabilitative purpose.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to inflicting grievous bodily harm after punching a 15-year-old girl, causing double fractures of her jaw. He was committed to the Crown Court at Wood Green for sentence.

The Crown Court imposed 30 months’ imprisonment and activated, consecutively and in full, a six-month suspended sentence for earlier drugs offences. The total was three years’ imprisonment.

On appeal by leave of the single judge, the appellant contended that the sentence for the assault was manifestly excessive under the relevant definitive guideline. He also challenged full activation of the suspended sentence because he had attended its supervision requirement.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The 30-month sentence for inflicting grievous bodily harm was quashed and replaced with 18 months’ imprisonment. The consecutive six-month term arising from the suspended sentence remained in place, producing a total of two years’ imprisonment.

2. The definitive guideline was not straightforward to apply literally. The offence involved neither a weapon nor premeditation, and the injury was serious but not particularly grave. On that basis, the starting point for a first offender would have been at the bottom of the guideline range. The appellant’s case, however, was materially more serious. He initiated intimidating behaviour towards a young victim who was trying to leave, delivered a particularly heavy punch, caused a double jaw fracture, and had a significant record.

3. Those features justified a sentence exceeding two years after a contested trial, potentially up to two and a half years. A notional sentence of about three years and nine months, from which the Crown Court’s sentence appeared to have been derived, was manifestly excessive. Allowing for the early guilty plea, 18 months was the proper sentence. The court treated the earlier single-punch sentencing decisions, including Clare [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 97, as useful comparisons.

4. Full activation of the suspended sentence was correct. Although compliance with requirements may justify a reduced activated term, this appellant’s attendance at the Think First Programme did not assist him. His subsequent conduct showed that he had not benefited from supervision, and he committed two offences during the operational period. Zeca [2009] EWCA Crim 133 was distinguishable because it concerned completed unpaid work.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part, reducing the sentence for inflicting grievous bodily harm from 30 months to 18 months while leaving the consecutive six-month activated term intact.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: On 6 January 2009, imposed 30 months’ imprisonment for inflicting grievous bodily harm and activated a six-month suspended sentence consecutively.
• Magistrates’ Court: On 10 November 2008, the appellant pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.