Ardic & Ors v R.

For sentencing under section 29 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the guideline for grievous bodily harm with intent may be used by analogy, but it is not directly applicable and sentence must reflect the seriousness of the particular offending. Harm assessment must take account of recovery as well as the potential consequences intended by use of corrosive fluid.

A community impact statement may be considered when assessing prevalence, public concern and deterrence. Before imposing an extended sentence on a dangerous offender, the court must consider whether a lengthy determinate sentence would sufficiently protect the public. The reliability and weight of disputed information about the offender must be assessed.

The appellants took part in a violent public disorder in which Hussain Onel sprayed corrosive fluid at Andre Lamont and six other people. Lamont sustained chemical burns, nerve damage and facial fractures. Ardic and Mehmet Tekagac also assaulted Lamont, and Tekagac robbed him.

At the Crown Court at Wood Green, each appellant received an extended sentence for the section 29 offence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. They appealed their sentences. The issues were whether the judge had overstated the victim’s injuries and imposed manifestly excessive determinate terms, and whether dangerousness justified extended sentences.

1. Appeals allowed to the stated extent. The court reduced the custodial terms to reflect a corrected understanding of Lamont’s injuries. Although the injuries had life-changing effects, including nerve damage, he retained full use of both eyes. The judge had therefore placed the offending too high within category 1 by reason of harm.
2. There is no definitive guideline for section 29 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The grievous bodily harm with intent guideline could properly be used by analogy because the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, but the cited corrosive-fluid cases were not sentencing guidelines. The court nevertheless upheld category 1 treatment. The appellants’ higher culpability, premeditation, targeting of faces, group violence, public setting and multiple victims justified severe deterrent sentences.
3. The judge could take account of the community impact statement, consistently with Brzezinski [2012] EWCA Crim 198. It evidenced the prevalence of corrosive fluids as weapons and public concern about attacks designed to maim or disfigure.
4. Under section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, disputed information could be considered only with appropriate assessment of its reliability and the plausibility of its denial. The judge had given no real weight to the disputed organised-crime-group material. Each appellant was nevertheless dangerous.
5. Applying Attorney-General’s Reference No.27 of 2013 (Burinskas) [2014] EWCA Crim 334, the court considered whether determinate terms sufficiently protected the public. Fourteen years for Tekagac and 12 years for Ardic did so; their extended sentences were replaced by determinate sentences. Onel’s indiscriminate face-targeting use of corrosive fluid, lack of insight and offending history justified an extended sentence of 19 years, comprising 16 years’ custody and three years’ extended licence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In Ardic & Ors v R. [2019] EWCA Crim 1836, the court allowed the sentence appeals to the stated extent and varied all three sentences.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: HHJ Perrins imposed extended sentences on 17 January 2019 for the section 29 offences, with concurrent terms for the remaining offences.