Attorney General Reference N0s. 69, 70 & 71 OF 2011

A planned and armed group attack causing life-threatening and multiple serious injuries is an offence of high culpability. It falls within category 1 of the definitive assault guideline, rather than category 2 for greater harm with lower culpability. A defendant’s role as driver or spotter does not make that role subordinate where it is a voluntary and integral part of the attack.

A guilty plea entered only after the trial process has begun, following disclosure applications unrelated to guilt, does not merit the recognition given to a prompt admission. A sentence founded on the wrong guideline category or excessive credit for such a plea is wrong in principle.

The Solicitor General referred the sentences of Jeavons, Metcalfe and Sweeney under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Each had pleaded guilty, on the third day of the listed trial, to conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm.

The offenders had taken part in a planned, masked and armed attack by a group at a busy public house. Four people were injured, including two who sustained life-threatening injuries. Jeavons entered the public house, Metcalfe drove the group, and Sweeney acted as a spotter. The sentencing judge imposed four years’ imprisonment on Jeavons and three and a half years on each of Metcalfe and Sweeney.

The common issue was whether the judge had wrongly treated the offence as category 2 under the definitive guideline for assault and other offences of violence, and had allowed excessive credit for the very late guilty pleas.

1. The court granted leave, quashed all three sentences and substituted sentences of eight years’ imprisonment for Jeavons and seven years’ imprisonment for each of Metcalfe and Sweeney.

2. The definitive guideline placed category 2 offences in either of two combinations: greater harm with lower culpability, or lesser harm with higher culpability. This case plainly involved greater harm. The relevant question was therefore whether culpability could properly be treated as lower.

3. It could not. The attack was planned, public, masked and carried out by a group armed with swords, machetes and baseball bats. Significant premeditation and use of weapons were express aggravating features under the guideline. The multiple injuries, including life-threatening injuries, reinforced the seriousness of the attack.

4. The offenders’ functions did not reduce their culpability. Jeavons entered the public house knowing the purpose of the armed group. Metcalfe was the driver needed for the operation and getaway. Sweeney was the spotter needed to identify the intended victims. Each was a voluntary and full participant in a combined criminal attack. The sentencing judge therefore erred in principle by treating the offence as category 2; it was plainly category 1.

5. The guilty pleas were tendered after the case had reached the third day of trial. The disclosure issue pursued by the defendants had no bearing on whether they were present or guilty. They could not claim the recognition properly given to prompt admissions. If the judge had allowed a 20 per cent reduction, that too was an error in principle.

6. After trial, the least appropriate sentence was about nine years’ imprisonment. The court allowed such reduction as it could for the belated pleas and imposed the substituted sentences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, quashed the sentences and substituted increased terms of imprisonment ([2011] EWCA Crim 2323).
• Sentencing judge: Following very late guilty pleas to conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm, Jeavons received four years’ imprisonment and Metcalfe and Sweeney each received three and a half years’ imprisonment.