Lamb & Ors, R. v

A Goodyear indication does not prevent a subsequent undue-leniency reference. Defence counsel must advise an offender of that possibility, and a prosecutor’s failure to remind the judge of the referral power creates no legitimate expectation that no reference will be made.

When assessing a category 1 wounding-with-intent sentence, the court must give proper weight to the guideline starting point, serious aggravating features and all available mitigation, including grave provocation. A sentence which fails adequately to reflect extreme violence remains unduly lenient despite substantial mitigation. The sentencing court must disregard the offender’s prospective release date.

Three related offenders pleaded guilty at Newcastle Crown Court to wounding with intent after a prolonged and extremely violent armed attack on an unarmed victim. The victim suffered life-threatening injuries. The sentencing judge accepted substantial mitigation arising from the victim’s previous bullying and violence, and imposed concurrent sentences of six years and nine months’ imprisonment.

The Solicitor General referred the sentences as unduly lenient. The offenders contended that the prosecution’s failure at the Goodyear hearing to mention a possible reference precluded the challenge or gave rise to a legitimate expectation. The central issues were whether that procedural objection was sustainable and whether the sentences properly reflected the guideline, aggravating features and mitigation.

1. The reference was allowed. The sentences of six years and nine months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent were unduly lenient. Sentences of nine years’ imprisonment were substituted for each offender on that count. The concurrent sentences on the remaining counts stood.

2. The procedural objection failed. Goodyear requires prosecution counsel, where applicable, to remind the judge of the referral power. It also requires defence counsel to advise an offender both of the possibility of a reference and not to plead guilty unless guilt is accepted. A failure by prosecution counsel to give the reminder does not invalidate a later undue-leniency challenge. It cannot create a legitimate expectation that no reference will be made.

3. The offences under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 were properly placed in category 1 of the Sentencing Council’s assault guideline. The life-threatening injuries, sustained attack, weapons, planning, luring of an unarmed victim and attempted concealment of weapons placed the offending towards the top of the 9-to-16-year range. The grave background provocation and the offenders’ personal mitigation required substantial reduction, but did not justify an unexplained pre-plea figure below the guideline range.

4. The court gave full weight to the accepted mitigation, including the particular circumstances of each offender, and allowed 20 per cent credit for guilty pleas. The least proper sentence was nine years. Covid prison conditions could have only limited effect given the necessary sentence length. The consequences of the statutory release regime had to be put entirely out of account.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held the sentences unduly lenient and substituted nine years’ imprisonment on the principal count.
• Newcastle Crown Court: On 27 November 2020, HHJ Adams sentenced each offender to six years and nine months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent, with shorter concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.