Hutt, R. v

A prior incident for which an offender has received a police caution may properly aggravate sentence for a later offence where it demonstrates increased seriousness of that later offending. This does not amount to double punishment for the earlier incident.

Sentence comparisons with unrelated cases will not assist unless the cases are materially comparable. Differences in age, offending and circumstances may make such comparisons unhelpful. Where fresh grounds of sentence appeal have no prospect of success, an extension of time and leave to appeal may be refused without determining the delay in detail.

The applicant was convicted on 11 September 2013 of the attempted murder of his former partner and sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge treated a 2012 knife threat, for which the applicant had received a police caution for common assault, as an aggravating feature of the later offence.

Leave to appeal sentence was refused by a single judge on 20 December 2013. Acting in person, the applicant sought a substantial extension of time to renew the application and to advance fresh grounds. He contended that reliance on the 2012 incident was double punishment and that his sentence was excessive by comparison with an unrelated case.

1. The court refused the applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence. The proposed fresh grounds had no prospect of success, so it was unnecessary to examine further the long delay or the proposed departure from the original grounds.

2. The sentencing judge lawfully and appropriately treated the October 2012 knife threat as an aggravating feature. The prior caution did not result in a second punishment for the earlier common assault. The incident materially increased the seriousness of the subsequent attempted murder because it formed part of the relevant context in which the later offence was committed.

3. The unrelated sentencing remarks relied upon by the applicant could not establish that his sentence was excessive. Sentencing comparisons require materially comparable cases. The other offenders appeared to be significantly younger and had not been convicted of attempted murder.

4. Having also considered whether an unrepresented applicant might have overlooked any favourable point, the court held that the 19-year sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the applicant’s applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence in [2018] EWCA Crim 2945.

• Trial court: the applicant was convicted of attempted murder on 11 September 2013 and sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment. Leave to appeal sentence was refused by a single judge on 20 December 2013.