Mitchell, R. v

Where a sentencing judge adopts the wrong starting point under the applicable definitive sentencing guideline, the resulting sentence may be quashed and replaced. Personal mitigation and professional consequences must be assessed in their proper context. They do not reduce the seriousness of offending which the offender brought upon himself.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Bournemouth Crown Court to causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Following an assault in which the complainant sustained fractures to his cheekbone and jaw requiring surgery, he was sentenced on 3 April 2009 to 30 months’ imprisonment.

He appealed with the single judge’s leave. His principal ground was that the sentencing judge had selected the wrong starting point under a definitive guideline issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. He also relied on personal mitigation and the effect of conviction on his career as a solicitor.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.
2. The principal complaint had merit because the sentencing judge had adopted the wrong starting point in the applicable definitive sentencing guideline. That error justified appellate intervention in the sentence imposed.
3. The court rejected the submission that greater weight should be given to the appellant’s personal mitigation or to the damage to his career as a solicitor. The professional consequences were matters for which he was responsible and did not alter the proper sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against sentence allowed; the 30-month sentence was quashed and replaced with 18 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Bournemouth: following a guilty plea, sentenced the appellant on 3 April 2009 to 30 months’ imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.