BAILLIE, R. v (Rev 1)

In a sentence appeal arising from a group assault, a sentencing judge may treat a defendant as fully responsible for the injuries where the evidence supports a finding that the defendant instigated the attack and encouraged its continuation. A lesser physical role does not require a separate or lower culpability assessment where the defendant remained present and encouraged the co-offender.

An appellate court will not interfere where the offence category and aggravating uplift were properly open to the sentencing judge and the resulting sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant appealed, with leave of the single judge, against a sentence of 38 months’ imprisonment imposed at Teesside Crown Court on 7 January 2020. She had pleaded guilty late to inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

The offence involved a joint street attack. The complainant sustained facial injuries including fractures. The appellant argued that she played a subordinate part, had disengaged before the principal injuries were inflicted by her co-defendant, and should have been sentenced in a lower guideline category. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the assault as a joint enterprise and not to distinguish between the appellant’s role and that of her co-defendant.

2. The CCTV evidence entitled the judge to find that the appellant instigated the attack. Although her co-defendant continued it and inflicted the injuries to the complainant’s head, the appellant did nothing to stop him. Her continued presence and attitude could properly be treated as encouragement. She therefore bore full responsibility for the injuries sustained.

3. The assault was a serious and sustained street attack. The complainant had little or no opportunity to defend himself. The sentencing judge correctly placed the offence in category 1, taking account of higher culpability arising from the use of shod feet.

4. The increase from the three-year starting point to three and a half years reflected material aggravating features, including the circumstances of the violence and the appellant’s previous convictions. After the appropriate reduction for her late guilty plea, the sentence of 38 months was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2020] EWCA Crim 606, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against sentence.
• Teesside Crown Court: On 7 January 2020, imposed 38 months’ imprisonment for inflicting grievous bodily harm.