Morgan, R. v

In sentencing for an offence contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, the categorisation of harm must reflect both the force and consequences of the assault. A multi-sited jaw fracture, unconsciousness, surgery and lasting physical and psychological effects may justify categorisation as greater harm.

Relevant previous violence may justify a sentence above the category starting point within the guideline range. Expressions of remorse may carry reduced weight where there is repeated similar offending. A plea entered on the day of trial may properly receive limited credit, particularly where witnesses have attended.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Norwich Crown Court to inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. He had punched the victim during an argument, breaking her jaw in several places. She required surgery and suffered lasting physical, psychological and employment effects.

The sentencing judge treated the offence as category 2 under the relevant sentencing guideline. She imposed an extended sentence under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising two and a half years' custody and a two and a half year extended licence period. The appellant appealed only the custodial term, contending that the offence belonged in category 3, that aggravating features had been double counted, and that insufficient credit had been given for his late guilty plea.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to categorise the offence as category 2 rather than category 3. The victim was struck with sufficient force to sustain multiple jaw fractures, was rendered unconscious and bleeding, and suffered long-lasting consequences requiring protracted treatment. Those matters justified treating the case as one of greater harm.

2. The judge was also entitled to impose a sentence above the category 2 starting point, while remaining within its range. The appellant's previous convictions included violence against women. They were significant aggravating features in an offence which was another instance of such violence. The court rejected the submission that the aggravating circumstances had been impermissibly double counted.

3. The appellant's claimed remorse did not require a reduction in sentence. Its weight could properly diminish in light of repeated offending of a similar kind.

4. The guilty plea was tendered on the day fixed for trial after witnesses had attended court. Although the maximum available credit at that stage was 10 per cent, the judge could allow only 5 per cent on these facts. A sentence of 30 months, reflecting that limited credit, was within the appropriate range.

5. The court additionally observed that a basis of plea should be confined to facts of the offence. An agreement between the parties about the applicable sentencing category does not bind the sentencing judge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the custodial term in [2018] EWCA Crim 1757.
• Norwich Crown Court: following a guilty plea, imposed an extended sentence under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.