Mohammed, R. v

On a sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal will not interfere where the sentencing judge was entitled to assess the gravity of serious glassing injuries under the applicable sentencing guideline, gave substantial credit for personal mitigation, and imposed a sentence within the proper range. A late guilty plea may properly attract a limited reduction. Immediate custody may be necessary where an offender deliberately breaks a glass into another person’s face, particularly near the eyes; the decision whether to suspend remains a matter of sentencing discretion.

The appellant pleaded guilty at trial to section 20 wounding after striking the victim’s face with a glass in a bar. The glass caused deep facial cuts and a penetrating eye injury. He was acquitted of the alternative section 18 charge.

The Recorder initially imposed 32 months’ custody. Following a further hearing under section 155 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, at which fuller evidence about the victim’s recovery was considered, the sentence was reduced to two years’ immediate custody.

The appellant appealed, contending that the offence had wrongly been placed in category 1 of the guideline, that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that it should have been suspended.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to place the offence in category 1 of the applicable guideline. The victim suffered deep facial lacerations and a penetrating injury to an eye. The injuries were unquestionably serious and the incident could readily have caused even graver harm.

2. The Recorder had heard the victim at trial, at sentence, and again at the later hearing. He was therefore particularly well placed to assess the continuing effect of the injuries and their proper categorisation. The later reduction to two years reflected the fuller and more current picture, including the victim’s recovery.

3. A two-year sentence was equivalent to 32 months after trial once the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction was restored. It was below the category 1 starting point of three years and showed that substantial weight had been given to the appellant’s strong personal mitigation. The court considered the 25 per cent reduction generous because an unequivocal plea to the lesser offence was not indicated until the first day of trial.

4. The sentence was not manifestly excessive. Nor had the Recorder erred in declining suspension. The decision was within his discretion and he had regard to the relevant guideline. In any event, appropriate punishment for breaking a glass into a person’s face near the eyes could only be achieved by immediate custody.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the two-year sentence of immediate custody: [2018] EWCA Crim 1995.
• Crown Court: following a guilty plea to section 20 wounding and acquittal on the section 18 count, the Recorder reduced the original sentence of two years and four months to two years at a further hearing. No citation was stated in the judgment.