Smith, R. v

In sentencing for unlawful wounding, the court must give proper weight both to the gravity of a weapon-inflicted injury and to substantial personal mitigation. Genuine remorse may be strongly evidenced by prompt and effective assistance to the victim after the offence. Previous good character and the consequences of immediate custody may also be material.

Where, after weighing those matters, the sentence is manifestly excessive, the Court of Appeal may quash it and substitute a lesser term.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court sitting at Canterbury of unlawful wounding after stabbing her partner in the chest during an alcohol-fuelled domestic argument. The wound punctured a heart valve, but the victim made a full recovery.

The appellant called the emergency services and attended to the wound. She was of previous good character, but the trial judge treated the use of a knife, the gravity of the injury and her alcohol-related violence as serious aggravating features. She received 30 months’ imprisonment.

By leave of the Single Judge, she appealed against sentence only. The issue was whether the 30-month term was manifestly excessive in light of the seriousness of the offending and the substantial mitigation.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The 30-month term was manifestly excessive. The court quashed it and substituted 18 months’ imprisonment.
2. The injury was exceptionally serious. The appellant used a knife and inflicted a chest wound which came close to being fatal. She had gone to another room to obtain the knife. Those matters, together with her history of resorting to violence when drunk, were substantial aggravating features.
3. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the case in the second-highest category in the Sentencing Guidelines Council framework: particularly grave injury or use of a weapon. The stated starting point was 18 months’ loss of liberty, with a range of 12 months to three years.
4. However, the mitigating material was powerful. The appellant was of previous good character, had behaved well as a mother and faced severe consequences from custody. Most importantly, her remorse was demonstrated by her conduct immediately after the stabbing. She called for emergency assistance and stemmed the bleeding, thereby improving the victim’s prospects of survival.
5. On the full balance of those matters, the interests of justice required a reduced sentence. The appeal therefore succeeded only to the extent of the substituted 18-month term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2011] EWCA Crim 1322, allowed the sentence appeal to a limited extent and substituted 18 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 31 January 2011, convicted the appellant of unlawful wounding and imposed 30 months’ imprisonment with consequential orders.