King, R. v

For sentencing an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, an injury is particularly grave only if it is particularly serious by the general standards of grievous bodily harm. A serious injury does not necessarily meet that higher threshold.

The Sentencing Guideline Council assault categories are not a rigid code. The court must assess the facts as a whole. Substantial aggravating features may justify a custodial sentence above the usual range for the applicable category, provided the sentence remains consistent with the guideline’s overall approach.

The appellant, aged 18 at the time of the appeal, was convicted after trial at Liverpool Crown Court of inflicting grievous bodily harm. During an unprovoked night-time attack with another young man, he punched the complainant and caused a fractured cheekbone requiring an operation. He received 18 months’ detention in a young offender institution.

He appealed with leave against sentence. The central issue was whether the injury made the offence a category 2 assault under the Sentencing Guideline Council’s definitive guideline on assault, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of 18 months’ detention was wrong in principle because the judge had treated the offence as a category 2 case under the Sentencing Guideline Council guideline.

2. Following the approach in R v Olawo [2008] 2 Cr App R(S) and R v Shannon [2009] 1 Cr Appr R(S) 95, the court held that a fractured cheekbone, although serious, was not a particularly grave injury by the standards of grievous bodily harm generally. The assault involved neither premeditation nor a weapon. It was therefore ostensibly category 4, rather than category 2 or category 3.

3. The guideline categories were not to be applied as a rigid straitjacket or by box-ticking. They were common-sense recommendations requiring assessment against the facts of the individual section 20 assault. This case had significant aggravating features: it was an unprovoked night-time attack on one man by two young men, and it caused a serious injury.

4. A term above the category 4 recommended maximum was therefore justified. The court quashed the 18-month sentence and substituted 12 months’ detention, which it considered consistent with the guideline’s general approach.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the 18-month term of detention and substituted 12 months’ detention: [2009] EWCA Crim 1990.
• Liverpool Crown Court: The appellant was convicted after trial of inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced to 18 months’ detention in a young offender institution.