Peck, R v

When considering suspension of a custodial sentence, the court must first fix the appropriate custodial term and then decide whether suspension is appropriate. Reversing that sequence fails to follow the required stepped approach under the Imposition Guideline.

The suspension decision requires a balanced assessment of the guideline factors. A serious offence that would ordinarily merit immediate custody may nevertheless justify suspension where there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, no material risk to the public, no poor record of compliance, and compelling personal mitigation, including serious harm to dependent children.

The appellant was convicted at Southampton Crown Court of unlawful wounding after using a broken wine bottle to cause serious and permanent facial injuries to the complainant. She received 18 months’ imprisonment, which the sentencing judge declined to suspend.

She appealed on the single ground that the sentence should have been suspended. The custodial term itself was not challenged. The central issue was whether the judge had correctly applied the Imposition Guideline when deciding that the sentence should take immediate effect.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the immediate sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment and substituted 18 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years, with a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 45 days.

2. There was no error in fixing the custodial term at 18 months. The offence was a serious Category 1 unlawful wounding. The appellant had taken items to the scene ready for use, used a broken bottle against the complainant’s face, and caused grave and lasting injuries.

3. However, the judge appeared to have decided against suspension before fixing the custodial term. That was the reverse of the correct stepped approach required by the Imposition Guideline. The court must first determine the appropriate term and then consider whether it should be suspended.

4. Proper application of the guideline strongly favoured suspension. The appellant presented no risk or danger to the public and had no history of poor compliance with court orders. She had a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, was effectively of good character, and had substantial personal mitigation.

5. The mitigating circumstances included her role as principal carer for two young children, the harmful impact of immediate custody upon them, her pregnancy, and significant mental disorders. Although use of a broken bottle against the complainant’s face would normally lead to immediate imprisonment, those factors were compelling. Immediate custody was therefore not the only justified sentence.

6. The court declined to add the four-month curfew suggested in the pre-sentence report because the appellant had already served six weeks in custody.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted an 18-month sentence suspended for two years, with a rehabilitation activity requirement.
• Crown Court at Southampton: On 30 August 2019, imposed 18 months’ immediate imprisonment following the appellant’s conviction for unlawful wounding.