Banks, R v

For sentencing under Offences against the Person Act 1861, a sustained or repeated attack can establish the greater-harm limb of the applicable guideline even where the injuries are not serious by comparison with other offences of wounding with intent. Use of a weapon may establish high culpability, placing the offence in category 1.

The sentence within that category must nevertheless reflect the comparative seriousness of the actual injuries and all aggravating and mitigating circumstances. A sentence is manifestly excessive where those matters do not justify the selected term.

The appellant was convicted after trial at Reading Crown Court of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. During a domestic argument, she struck the complainant with a vodka bottle and then repeatedly slashed at him with broken glass as he attempted to flee.

She received 12 years’ imprisonment. On her appeal against sentence, she contended that the injuries did not amount to greater harm for the Sentencing Council guideline and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was the proper category and sentence for a sustained weapon attack which caused injuries less serious than those in other section 18 cases.

Disposition

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment. The previously revoked community order remained discharged.
2. The Sentencing Council guideline provided alternative routes to greater harm: serious harm by comparison with other offences of the same kind, or a sustained or repeated attack. This was plainly a sustained or repeated attack. The appellant pursued the complainant and continued the assault with broken glass as he tried to escape. The use of that weapon established high culpability. The offence was therefore properly in category 1.
3. The complainant’s injuries were bloody but not serious by comparison with other cases of wounding with intent. Although more serious injury, including fatal injury, could readily have resulted, sentence had to reflect the harm actually caused. That feature required recognition within the category 1 range.
4. The judge had identified aggravating features, but several were manifestations of the appellant’s alcoholism. Material mitigation included her borderline intellectual functioning, history of abusive relationships, efforts in custody to address alcohol misuse, and absence of any previous custodial sentence. In the overall assessment, neither 14 to 15 years nor the imposed 12 years was justified. Nine years was the proportionate sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—By [2018] EWCA Crim 333, allowed the appellant’s sentence appeal, quashed the 12-year sentence and substituted nine years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Reading—Following trial, convicted the appellant on 21 April 2017 of wounding with intent. On 21 July 2017, imposed 12 years’ imprisonment and revoked an earlier community order.