Allard, R. v

When sentencing for wounding with intent to resist or prevent lawful apprehension, the guideline for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm may provide an appropriate analogue. The harm category must reflect injury actually caused, while any intention to cause more serious harm is a culpability factor.

Sentencing must also give sufficient effect to totality. Where several serious offences are committed by a young adult, the overall sentence must be just and proportionate to the aggregate offending. The court may vary both the total term and the structure of extended sentences to achieve that result.

The appellant was convicted after three trials in the Crown Court at Aylesbury of attempted robbery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, wounding with intent, wounding with intent to resist or prevent lawful apprehension, dangerous driving, and being concerned in the supply of a class B controlled drug.

The sentencing judge found him dangerous and imposed consecutive extended sentences totalling 26 years, comprising 21 years’ custody and a five-year extension period. The appellant appealed against sentence. He contended that the offence against the police officer had been placed in the wrong guideline category and that insufficient allowance had been made for totality, particularly given his age.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court held that the sentencing judge had made insufficient allowance for totality. A substantial custodial term and extended determinate sentences remained necessary, but a total custodial term of 21 years was not just and proportionate when the overall offending was considered alongside the appellant’s young age and limited indications of capacity to change.

2. The guideline for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm was an appropriate analogue for the wounding committed to resist arrest. It would have been inappropriate to use the guideline for unlawful wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

3. The judge had nevertheless erred in treating the offence against the police officer as Category 1. Under the analogous guideline, serious harm means harm actually caused. The officer’s physical and psychological injuries, though significant, fell below the high level of injury serious in the context of a section 18 offence. The offence was therefore equivalent to Category 2, albeit near or above its range after the substantial aggravating features were considered.

4. Three consecutive extended sentences were lawful, but their structure could create future difficulty in identifying release eligibility. The court substituted a three-year determinate sentence for attempted robbery and concurrent extended sentences of 20 years, each comprising 15 years’ custody and a five-year extension period, for the two wounding offences. The concurrent extended sentences were consecutive to the three-year sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence in part and substituted a shorter, restructured overall sentence: [2019] EWCA Crim 1075.

• Crown Court at Aylesbury: Following three trials, imposed consecutive extended sentences totalling 26 years, comprising 21 years’ custody and a five-year extension period.