Kudriasov, R v

For category 1 offences of wounding with intent, a sentencing court must reflect all aggravating features and the total criminality. It must nevertheless remain proportionate to the guideline starting point and range. Where concurrent sentences for two grave assaults move too far above the applicable starting point, the Court of Appeal may reduce them even though the offending involved premeditated group violence, weapons, grave injuries and lasting harm.

R v Kudriasov and Apsitis concerned two appellants convicted at Lincoln Crown Court of two offences of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.

They were members of an armed group which attacked two men at their home. Both victims sustained serious stab and other injuries, with substantial continuing physical and psychological consequences. The judge imposed concurrent terms of 18 years for the section 18 offences and a concurrent two-year term for the conspiracy.

With leave of the single judge, the appellants appealed their sentences as manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the judge had given sufficient weight to mitigation and had moved too far above the applicable guideline starting point.

1. The appeals were allowed in part. The concurrent 18-year sentences for wounding with intent were quashed and replaced with concurrent sentences of 16 years. The concurrent two-year sentence for conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice was unchanged. Each appellant's total sentence was therefore reduced from 18 to 16 years.

2. The offences properly fell within category 1 of the assault guideline. The applicable starting point for each section 18 offence was 12 years' imprisonment, within a range of 9 to 16 years. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the sustained attacks, premeditation, weapons, home setting, severe continuing harm, effects on witnesses and alcohol as serious aggravating features.

3. The court accepted that the appellants had not led the group in the sense asserted by counsel, but held that each nevertheless played a leading role in the joint violence. The judge was entitled to reject alleged provocation or a drugs-related background as mitigation. Neither revenge for an earlier incident nor an unproved drugs background assisted offenders who had not truthfully explained the cause of the attack.

4. The court accepted that good character, family responsibilities and constructive conduct on remand were relevant personal mitigation. Standing back from the case as a whole, however, the decisive point was that the judge had moved too far upwards from the guideline starting point. Concurrent terms of 16 years sufficiently reflected the exceptional gravity of the offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeals in part and substituted concurrent 16-year sentences for the section 18 offences.
• Crown Court at Lincoln: The appellants were convicted and, on 17 May 2016, each received concurrent 18-year sentences for wounding with intent and a concurrent two-year sentence for conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.