Collis, R. v

A sentencing court must follow an applicable definitive guideline unless departure would be contrary to the interests of justice under section 125(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. In assessing culpability for a serious wounding, use of a weapon may indicate higher culpability, but the court must also give proper weight to factors expressly indicating lower culpability, including substantial provocation and excessive self-defence.

Where those competing features place the offence between guideline categories, the appropriate starting point may be the boundary between them. The sentence must then reflect both the grave harm and the mitigation, including full credit for a guilty plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Derby to wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. During a fight after the complainant forced his way into the appellant's flat and assaulted the appellant's wife, the appellant picked up a knife and inflicted a life-threatening neck injury.

The sentencing judge imposed eight years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the judge had adopted too high a guideline starting point or should have treated the case as exceptional and departed from the guideline. The central issue was the proper categorisation of harm and culpability under the definitive assault guideline.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court held that section 125(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 required the sentencing court to follow the applicable definitive guideline unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. There was no reason to depart from the guideline in this case. The guideline itself treated greater-than-usual provocation and excessive self-defence as indicators of lower culpability.
2. The life-threatening injury meant that the offence involved greater harm. The use of a knife pointed towards higher culpability. However, the knife had been picked up in the heat of the fight, rather than carried in advance. The complainant's provocation and the appellant's excessive attempt to defend his wife and child pointed towards lower culpability.
3. The offence did not fit comfortably within either higher or lower culpability. It fell at their borderline and therefore at the boundary between category 1 and category 2. A nine-year starting point was appropriate, rather than the judge’s notional starting point of 12 years. Category 1 carried a 12-year starting point and a range of nine to 16 years; category 2 carried a six-year starting point and a range of five to nine years.
4. Giving full credit for the guilty plea, while recognising the gravity of the injury and use of a knife alongside the substantial mitigation, the court quashed the eight-year sentence and substituted six years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted six years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Derby: following a guilty plea to wounding with intent, imposed eight years’ imprisonment.