Maxwell, R. v

A sentencing court must follow relevant guidelines unless, under Coroners and Justice Act 2009, it is satisfied that doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. In assault cases, sentencing requires an assessment of harm and culpability followed by consideration of all aggravating and mitigating factors. Guidelines guide that assessment but do not require a case to be forced into a category range that fails to reflect its true seriousness.

Even where culpability is lower, catastrophic and enduring injury, together with substantial offender-related aggravation, may justify a sentence outside the usual range and close to the statutory maximum. The appellate question remains whether the resulting sentence is manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Carlisle to inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. During a drinking gathering, he delivered one forceful punch to the victim, who fell onto concrete and suffered a catastrophic brain injury requiring emergency surgery and prolonged neuro-rehabilitation.

On 13 July 2018, the Crown Court imposed 42 months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge held that the enduring harm and aggravating features made strict application of the relevant guideline range inappropriate. The appellant appealed with the single judge’s leave, contending that the starting point was excessive and insufficient regard had been given to mitigation.

The central issue was whether the departure from the guideline range, and the resulting sentence, were manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. Section 125 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ordinarily requires a sentencing court to follow relevant guidelines. It permits departure where following them would be contrary to the interests of justice. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to conclude that strict application of the guideline range did not reflect this offence.

3. The court applied the guideline’s staged assessment. At the first stage, the injury was catastrophic, significant and enduring, so that harm was exceptionally serious. The offence involved lower culpability: it was a single, unpremeditated punch, with modest provocation and without the specified higher-culpability factors.

4. At the second stage, however, the aggravating factors were substantial. They included the continuing effect on the victim, the appellant’s significant history of violent offending, commission of the offence while on licence, breach of a conditional discharge, and offending while under the influence of alcohol. The effect on the victim’s family also properly informed the assessment. The mitigation was limited, despite the fact that only one blow was struck.

5. The court approved the approach in R v Dodds [2013] EWCA Crim 22 and R v Triston Channer [2011] 1 Cr App R (S) 75: assault guidelines must be applied flexibly and with regard to all circumstances. The judge was entitled to treat the case as falling within, and beyond, the highest category range. A pre-plea sentence close to the five-year maximum, reduced by 25 per cent for the guilty plea, was justified by the extreme injury and cumulative aggravation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the sentence appeal: [2019] EWCA Crim 130.
• Crown Court at Carlisle The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and was sentenced on 13 July 2018 to 42 months’ imprisonment.