Jones, R v

A sentencing court may rely on a victim personal statement to establish serious psychological harm without expert evidence. The evidence must nevertheless be sufficient, reliable and up to date. A statement made shortly after an offence may accurately describe immediate distress but may not safely establish serious and enduring harm beyond that ordinarily inherent in the offence.

A victim personal statement relied upon at sentence should be in proper witness-statement form and served on the defence in good time. If serious psychological harm is not proved, lesser psychological impact remains relevant as an aggravating factor within the applicable sentencing range.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Chester to conspiracy to rob. He had lured an acquaintance to a secluded area, where two co-defendants robbed the complainant at knifepoint.

The sentencing judge treated the offence as category A1 because the complainant had suffered serious psychological harm. The judge imposed five years’ detention in a young offender institution after allowing for the appellant’s guilty plea and youth.

The appeal concerned whether the victim evidence, comprising an early victim personal statement and an informal late update, provided a safe basis for that categorisation. Further social-media material suggested that the complainant had resumed some social activities before sentence.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of five years’ detention and substituted three years and four months’ detention in a young offender institution.

2. The informal, unsigned late update about the complainant’s condition was not an acceptable substitute for a properly served and up-to-date victim personal statement. The court applied the procedural guidance in R v Perkins [2013] EWCA Crim 323 and R v Chall [2019] EWCA Crim 865. Evidence of victim impact must be provided in proper form and in sufficient time for the defence to address it.

3. Expert evidence is not required to establish serious psychological harm. A victim personal statement may provide a sufficient evidential basis. However, the sentencing court must make a dispassionate assessment on a sufficient and reliable evidential basis. An early statement may demonstrate intense immediate fear and distress without establishing harm that is serious, enduring and significantly greater than is ordinarily inherent in the offence.

4. Here, the evidence did not safely support a finding of serious psychological harm in the sentencing-guidelines sense. The complainant’s original statement was accepted as truthful, but it was not a reliable indicator of the likely duration and severity of the harm. The later material gave grounds for optimism that he was rebuilding his social life. Psychological impact falling below that threshold remained an aggravating factor, but it did not justify category A1.

5. The offence should have been placed in category A2. The judge’s assessment of aggravating and mitigating features was otherwise sound. Applying the reduction for youth before the guilty-plea discount, the proper post-trial sentence was five years’ detention, reduced by one-third for the plea. Credit for 41 days spent on qualifying curfew remained.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the sentence imposed below and substituted three years and four months’ detention in a young offender institution: [2020] EWCA Crim 1139.

• Crown Court at Chester: On 17 December 2019, sentenced the appellant, following his guilty plea to conspiracy to rob, to five years’ detention in a young offender institution.