Attorney General Reference No 80 of 2009

Domestic violence is not less serious because it occurs within a relationship or the home. Its setting may instead aggravate the offence, particularly where there is an abuse of trust, control, sustained cruelty or an intention to punish or disfigure.

An offender must be sentenced only for the offence proved or admitted. Unproven allegations of earlier violence cannot aggravate sentence. However, the known history of a violent relationship may prevent favourable personal references from establishing positive good character or substantial mitigation. A very late guilty plea, following prolonged denial, attracts limited credit. Sentencing judges must pay heed to the applicable Definitive Guidelines and should not depart from them without a proper basis.

The Attorney General sought leave, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to refer as unduly lenient a sentence imposed on Harpal Singh Moore.

At Wolverhampton Crown Court, the offender had pleaded guilty on the first day of his trial to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He had deliberately and repeatedly applied a heated iron to his wife's face, causing burns, scarring and other injuries. The plea followed earlier denials and repeated delays.

On 4 September 2009, Judge Walsh imposed two years and six months' imprisonment. The central issue was whether that sentence failed properly to reflect the applicable sentencing guidance, the gravity of the sustained domestic attack, the limited mitigation and the late plea.

1. The court granted leave to refer the sentence, quashed it as unduly lenient, and substituted five years' imprisonment.

2. The sentencing judge was obliged to pay heed to the Sentencing Guidelines Council's Definitive Guidelines on assault and domestic violence. A departure was permissible in an appropriate case, but this was not such a case. Domestic violence in a domestic setting is no less serious than comparable violence elsewhere. The setting may increase seriousness where it involves abuse of trust, power or control.

3. The offence was one of sustained and deliberate cruelty. The offender had switched on the iron, allowed it to heat, repeatedly applied it to the complainant's face, and then continued the assault by punching her. The conduct was intended to punish and disfigure her. It caused severe pain and permanent, unsightly facial scarring. The appropriate sentence before mitigation was at least five and a half years.

4. The offender could be sentenced only for the offence before the court. The court therefore did not treat denied and unproved allegations of earlier assaults as aggravating features. Those matters nevertheless formed part of the relationship's known history. Together with the offender's prior convictions and the accepted presence of violence in the relationship, they meant that favourable references could not properly be treated as establishing positive good character or justifying a substantial reduction.

5. The only material mitigation was the guilty plea. It came almost two years after charge, after changing accounts and on the first day of trial when the complainant had attended to give evidence. It therefore warranted only limited credit. A sentence of five years was the least sentence properly available.

The court added that complaints of domestic abuse must be taken seriously. Victims may need time and courage before supporting proceedings, and criminal justice professionals should apply the domestic-violence guideline conscientiously.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney General's reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted five years' imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Wolverhampton: On 4 September 2009, following a guilty plea to an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Judge Walsh imposed two years and six months' imprisonment.