Lawrence, R. v

A sentencing court may dispense with a pre-sentence report under section 156(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where, acting judicially and for sound reasons, it considers a report unnecessary. That conclusion may be justified where immediate custody is inevitable and the court already has sufficient reliable information about the offender.

The seriousness of injury for the Sentencing Council assault guideline is assessed objectively and in context. Multiple fractures, surgical treatment and continuing effects may properly place a single-blow section 20 offence in the greater-harm category. Sentencing comparisons require attention to material differences in harm, culpability, remorse and mitigation, rather than superficial factual similarity.

The appellant, a 25-year-old man of good character, was convicted at Wood Green Crown Court of inflicting grievous bodily harm after he ran onto a football pitch and punched an opposing player during a confrontation between teams. The victim sustained fractures to his eye socket and cheek, required surgery and continued to suffer symptoms.

On 12 October 2011, HHJ Carr imposed nine months’ imprisonment. He classified the offence as category 2 under the Sentencing Council assault guideline. With leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against sentence. He contended that a pre-sentence report was required and that the offence should instead have been placed in the lesser-harm category.

1. Appeal dismissed. The nine-month sentence was not excessive.

2. Under section 156(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a court normally obtains a pre-sentence report before making the sentencing decisions identified in that provision. Section 156(4) permits the court to dispense with a report where it considers one unnecessary. That decision must be made judicially and for sound reasons. Here immediate imprisonment was inevitable, and the judge had substantial information about the appellant’s background and personal mitigation. It was therefore unnecessary to obtain a report.

3. The judge correctly assessed the offence as category 2, involving greater harm but lower culpability, under the assault guideline. The seriousness of injury in context is an objective assessment based on judicial experience. The multiple facial fractures, surgical insertion of a plate and continuing symptoms justified the conclusion that the harm was serious in the context of a section 20 offence. The fact that the appellant delivered one blow and was of good character were mitigating features, but did not displace custody.

4. R v Cotterill [2007] 2 Cr App R (S) 64 provided only a superficial comparison. In that case the offender was already on the field, promptly expressed remorse, pleaded guilty and the victim fully recovered. In the present case the appellant ran onto the field to intervene in a dispute unconnected with him, caused more serious harm and had neither acknowledged guilt nor expressed remorse. The sentencing judge’s approach and conclusion could not be criticised.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against the nine-month sentence: [2011] EWCA Crim 3129.
• Wood Green Crown Court — following conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm, HHJ Carr sentenced the appellant to nine months’ imprisonment on 12 October 2011.