Dickinson, R v

Where a defendant pleads guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm on a basis which does not admit an intention to cause injury, sentence should reflect recklessness as to likely harm, the force used, the vulnerability of the child and any breach of trust. The serious injury remains a central sentencing consideration.

A timely indication of a guilty plea may merit full credit even if the formal plea is entered later. The sentencing court must ensure that its post-trial starting point and the reduction for the plea produce a proportionate sentence within the statutory maximum.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Manchester Crown Court to inflicting grievous bodily harm on a five-year-old child living in the same household. The offence arose during purported boxing, in which the child suffered a transection of the pancreas and extensive bruising.

The basis of plea admitted punches to the child’s stomach but did not admit an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. The Recorder imposed three and a half years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the assessment of culpability and the credit for his guilty plea were excessive and insufficient respectively.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment.
2. On the basis of plea, the appellant should be sentenced on the footing that he did not intend to inflict injury, but was reckless as to the likely consequences of striking a five-year-old child during an activity described as boxing. The activity was wholly inappropriate. The injury nevertheless showed that considerable force had been used.
3. The sentencing assessment had to reflect both the grave consequential injury and the reduced level of culpability. Although gloves could soften a blow, a bare-fisted attack on a small child would have been more serious. The appropriate post-trial starting point was about three and a half years, rather than four to four and a half years.
4. The appellant had indicated at the plea and case-management hearing on 10 November 2008 that he would plead guilty to the offence under section 20. He was entitled to full credit for that indication, despite entering the formal plea later. A sentence of two and a half years properly reflected that credit.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted two and a half years’ imprisonment: [2009] EWCA Crim 2119.
• Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester: On 30 April 2009, imposed three and a half years’ imprisonment following the appellant’s guilty plea to inflicting grievous bodily harm.