Parker, R v

Sentencing guidelines guide the assessment of seriousness but cannot prescribe the appropriate sentence for every assault. A sustained domestic assault involving repeated blows, significant injury, a vulnerable victim and relevant previous violence may properly be treated as close in seriousness to a premeditated assault, even if it was not planned.

Credit for a guilty plea may be substantially reduced where the defendant indicated a trial until shortly before it began and had maintained a false account of self-defence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Leeds Crown Court to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He received two years’ imprisonment and appealed against sentence with the single judge’s leave.

Following alcohol-fuelled jealousy, he repeatedly punched his former partner, including while she was on the ground. She sustained two black eyes, bruising and other facial and bodily injuries. The appellant had a previous caution for battery against the same complainant and initially alleged self-defence.

The appeal concerned whether the sentence exceeded the relevant assault guidelines and whether adequate credit had been given for the late guilty plea.

1. Appeal dismissed. The two-year sentence was severe but justified. The offence was among the most serious section 47 assaults and did not exceed the proper sentencing range.

2. The court accepted that the assault was not premeditated. However, the guidelines did not prescribe a sentence for every combination of facts. The sustained and repeated attack, the substantial injuries, the domestic setting and the complainant’s vulnerability made it not much less serious than a truly premeditated assault.

3. The judge was entitled to treat the attack as a bullying and vicious assault on a defenceless victim. The appellant had repeatedly punched the complainant, including when she was on the ground. His previous violence, particularly the earlier battery involving the same complainant, and the domestic-abuse context were aggravating features.

4. Reduced credit for the guilty plea was appropriate. A trial had been indicated until shortly before it was due to begin, and the appellant had maintained a self-defence account in interview. The court considered that, after a trial, the offence could have warranted at least two and a half to three years’ imprisonment. The discount allowed by the judge was therefore adequate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the two-year sentence in [2009] EWCA Crim 1226.
• Crown Court at Leeds: the appellant pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.