Wright & Anor, R v

For sentencing purposes, where an offender’s blows cause the victim to fall, the resulting injury is causally attributable to the assault. A distinction between injury caused directly by a blow and injury caused by the consequent fall will not reduce sentence where it has no meaningful causal significance.

Sentencing guidelines are guidelines, not statutes. A court is not strictly confined by guidance framed for a first-time offender when sentencing offenders with previous convictions. A sentence that is severe will not be varied on appeal unless it is manifestly excessive.

The appellants pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Liverpool to unlawful wounding after each punched a heavily intoxicated complainant outside a city-centre bar. The complainant fell down steps, suffered a depressed skull fracture and subdural haemotoma, required surgery, and faced lasting consequences.

Each appellant, then aged 18, received detention in a young offender institution for two years and four months. They appealed by leave of the single judge, contending that the sentences were manifestly excessive. They relied in particular on the sentencing guideline, their age and limited unrelated convictions, and the asserted distinction between injury caused by their blows and injury caused by the subsequent fall.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The sentences were severe but not manifestly excessive. Any reduction would amount only to impermissible tinkering with sentences that properly reflected the gravity of the offending.

2. The court was entitled to proceed in Huyton’s absence. He knew of his right to attend and that the court was minded to proceed, but deliberately refused to board the prison van. That conduct was a clear waiver of attendance; his refusal to sign a waiver form did not alter the position.

3. The appellants’ blows caused the complainant to fall. The court had difficulty with the reasoning in R v Hickman [2001] 2 Cr App R(S) 261, insofar as it distinguished injury caused by a blow from injury caused by the resulting fall. On these facts there was no meaningful distinction. The appellants were therefore causally responsible for the grave injuries sustained in the fall.

4. The offence was charged under section 20 rather than section 18, but that distinction concerned intention, not causation. The line of authority represented by Hickman had no bearing on the appropriate sentence.

5. The sentencing guideline did not confine the judge. Guidelines are not statutes and, in their current form, applied to first-time offenders. These appellants had previous convictions. Their deliberate violence, following an earlier assault on the complainant, and the catastrophic consequences justified the sentences imposed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed both appeals against sentence.

• Crown Court at Liverpool — sentenced each appellant to two years and four months’ detention in a young offender institution for unlawful wounding.