Williamson, R. v

On an Attorney General’s reference, a sentence is unduly lenient where it falls outside the range properly open to the sentencing judge. A court must sentence on the factual basis that it is bound to accept, including a written basis of plea where no Newton hearing has been held.

Weighty personal mitigation may justify a substantial reduction from the guideline starting point. It must nevertheless be assessed against the seriousness of the offending, the harm caused and all aggravating features. A reduction which fails to produce a just and proportionate punishment warrants intervention.

The offender pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Worcester to causing grievous bodily harm with intent. He received four years’ imprisonment after the judge treated the offence as category 1 under the relevant sentencing guideline but reduced the notional post-trial sentence for personal mitigation and the effect of imprisonment on his children.

The Attorney General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal was required to sentence on the written basis of plea, because no Newton hearing had been held. The central issue was whether the reduction for mitigation took the sentence outside the proper sentencing range.

1. The court granted the Attorney General leave to refer, quashed the four-year sentence, and substituted six years and nine months’ imprisonment.

2. In the absence of a Newton hearing, the sentencing court had to proceed on the factual basis in the written plea. The Court of Appeal therefore did not treat the assault as sustained or repeated, since the offender admitted only two unlawful blows. It observed that the difference between the plea basis and the complainant’s account was stark and could have affected the appropriate place within category 1, but it did not criticise the earlier decision not to hold a hearing.

3. The offence was properly within category 1. Its life-threatening injury and weapon use were relevant to that categorisation. The sentencing judge should also have moved upwards from the guideline starting point for the attack in the victim’s home, the long-term harm, and the fact that the violence arose from the theft of cannabis grown in the offender’s criminal activity. Care was required to avoid double counting harm already reflected in category 1.

4. The court accepted substantial mitigation: lack of relevant or recent convictions, genuine remorse and behavioural change, good character, the isolated nature of the offending, and the offender’s role as primary carer for two bereaved children. Those matters justified a significant reduction. They did not justify reducing a sentence starting at 12 years, before aggravating features, to five years and four months after trial. That sentence fell outside the range properly open to the judge and was not just and proportionate punishment. The minimum proper sentence after trial was nine years; applying guilty-plea credit produced six years and nine months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted six years and nine months’ imprisonment: [2019] EWCA Crim 259.

• Crown Court at Worcester: On 22 November 2018, after a guilty plea to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, the offender was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.