Unsworth, R. v

A sentencing court dealing with wounding with intent to resist or prevent lawful arrest may have regard to the definitive guideline for section 18 wounding, although that guideline does not directly govern the offence. Its culpability and harm factors remain useful because both offences carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Sentence must reflect the actual seriousness of the violence, including the offender’s intent and the reason more serious injury was avoided. Repeated, forceful use of a knife against a police officer while escaping arrest is highly aggravating. A sentence is unduly lenient where it fails adequately to reflect those features, even after proper allowance for guilty plea credit and totality.

The Solicitor General referred the offender’s sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient.

At Bolton Crown Court, the offender had received concurrent sentences of four years and six months for three robberies, a consecutive four-year sentence for wounding with intent to resist arrest, and a concurrent sentence for possessing a bladed article. The aggregate sentence was eight years and six months.

During his escape from a knife-point robbery, he repeatedly stabbed a uniformed police officer who sought to arrest him. The officer’s body armour prevented more serious injury. The central issue was whether the four-year sentence for the section 18 offence, and thus the aggregate sentence, was unduly lenient.

The court granted leave and allowed the Attorney General’s reference. The sentence for count 4 was unduly lenient. It substituted a sentence of six years’ imprisonment for that count, producing a total sentence of ten years and six months.

1. Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 covers wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent to resist or prevent lawful apprehension. The definitive guideline for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm does not specifically cover that form of section 18 offending. However, following R v Haywood [2014] EWCA Crim 2006, a sentencing court may have regard to it because the offences have the same maximum penalty. The guideline’s culpability and harm factors are useful, although it is not binding.

2. The authorities demonstrated that sentences for this form of offence vary substantially with its seriousness. The court considered R v Talbot [2012] EWCA Crim 2322, R v Haywood, R v Smith (Craig William) [2019] 1 Cr App R (S) 30, and R v Cheetham [2019] EWCA Crim 288 as illustrations of that range.

3. This offence lay at the top of category 2, involving lesser harm and higher culpability, for which the guideline range was five to nine years. The offender had fled a serious knife-point robbery, repeatedly and forcefully stabbed a uniformed officer to avoid arrest, and had recent convictions for carrying a knife. The court rejected the suggestion that he was unaware that the victim was a police officer. The minor injuries did not mitigate the offence: more serious harm was prevented by body armour, rather than any restraint or lack of intent by the offender.

4. A starting point of five years, and the resulting four-year sentence, failed adequately to reflect those features. The proper starting point was at least eight years. The court did not interfere with the judge’s 20 per cent credit for the guilty plea, since plea credit was a matter for the sentencing judge. After allowing for totality, it imposed six years’ imprisonment on count 4.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Granted leave and allowed the Attorney General’s unduly lenient sentence reference: [2019] EWCA Crim 1135. The sentence for the section 18 offence was increased from four to six years.
• Crown Court at Bolton On 1 April 2019, imposed an aggregate sentence of eight years and six months for three robberies, wounding with intent to resist arrest, and possession of a bladed article.