Martin, R v

Sentencing for grave wounding with intent requires a holistic assessment of the guideline framework. Aggravating and mitigating features should not be mechanically compartmentalised into separate sentencing levels.

A sustained revenge knife attack on an innocent, defenceless victim, causing life-threatening injuries and permanent harm, requires a very heavy custodial sentence. Previous good character, remorse, a guilty plea and the offender’s trauma from an earlier attack may mitigate sentence, but cannot reduce it to an inadequate level. A sentence of five years was increased to eight years on the Attorney General’s reference under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The offender pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Cardiff to wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. A jury acquitted him of attempted murder arising from the same incident. The Recorder of Cardiff sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.

The offence followed the offender’s mistaken belief that the victim was one of the men who had previously stabbed him. Having accepted a butterfly knife from an acquaintance, he waited outside a nightclub and repeatedly stabbed the wholly innocent victim. The victim suffered life-threatening injuries and lasting physical and psychological harm.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that it was unduly lenient. The issue was whether the five-year sentence adequately reflected the offence’s gravity despite substantial mitigation.

1. The court granted leave and allowed the Attorney General’s reference. The sentence of five years’ imprisonment was inadequate and was increased to eight years’ imprisonment.

2. The court accepted that the offender had substantial mitigation. He was young, of previous positive good character, genuinely remorseful, facing his first custodial sentence, and had pleaded guilty. His earlier experience as the victim of a knife attack also helped explain why he acted so out of character.

3. Those matters could only reduce culpability to a limited extent. This was a revenge attack against a wholly innocent victim. Although the offender had not gone out carrying a knife, he accepted one when it was offered, held it open and waited until the intended victim was vulnerable. He then inflicted about twenty stab wounds, including after the victim had fallen and was helpless.

4. The attack was exceptionally grave. It was committed in a city-centre setting against a defenceless person and caused life-threatening injuries, permanent scarring and continuing psychological and physical damage. The victim survived because of prompt and skilled medical treatment.

5. The court held that the sentencing guidelines required an overall evaluation. The case could be placed at a higher guideline level with mitigation or at a lower level with aggravating features. Either analysis required a very heavy sentence. Allowing fully for mitigation, eight years’ imprisonment was the appropriate sentence for wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave and increased the sentence: [2010] EWCA Crim 352.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: The offender was acquitted by a jury of attempted murder and had pleaded guilty to wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The Recorder sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment on 11 November 2009. No lower-court citation was stated.