Wiliamson, R v

A sentencing judge who departs from the applicable definitive guideline must explain the departure. A sentence may properly exceed the guideline range where the facts justify it, but the court must identify why.

Where a defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity, any refusal to give full appropriate credit requires reasons. Sentence must reflect the offence admitted or proved; it must not compensate for a prosecutorial decision not to charge a more serious offence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to causing grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He had repeatedly punched and kicked his partner, causing a broken nose, loose teeth and a fractured cheekbone.

At Bristol Crown Court he received four years’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence, contending that the judge had exceeded the relevant Sentencing Guideline Council definitive guideline without explaining the departure and had not given proper credit for his guilty plea.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of four years’ imprisonment was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive. It was quashed and replaced with a sentence of three years’ imprisonment, with the ten days already spent in custody to count towards it.
2. The appellant had admitted only an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The sentencing judge was therefore required to have regard to the applicable Sentencing Guideline Council definitive guideline and to explain any decision not to follow it. For particularly grave injury, the guideline gave a range of 12 months to three years after a contested trial, with an 18-month starting point.
3. The judge had in substance selected the guideline maximum, which was reserved for premeditated assaults involving a weapon, and then imposed four years despite the guilty plea. He gave no reasons either for exceeding the guideline or for withholding full credit for a plea entered at the earliest opportunity. Those omissions made the sentence erroneous.
4. The Court nevertheless regarded the offence as very grave. The sustained violence, the injuries and the appellant’s serious history of violence justified a sentence near the maximum properly available after a contested trial. It would, however, be wrong to increase sentence merely because the prosecution had not charged the more serious section 18 offence. The proper contested sentence was four and a half years; full credit for the plea reduced it to three years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the four-year sentence and substituted three years’ imprisonment.
• Bristol Crown Court: On 23 December 2008, sentenced the appellant to four years’ imprisonment after his guilty plea to an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.