Grantham, R. v

For the greater-harm category in the sentencing guideline for wounding with intent, a sustained or repeated assault must be sufficiently prolonged or persistent to take the case outside the norm for offences under section 18. The assessment is fact-specific and includes the number of blows, the injuries and their location, and the assault’s duration. A short assault involving three blows did not meet that threshold.

A guilty-plea reduction is determined by when the plea was first indicated to the court. An indication made at the plea and trial preparation hearing attracted the usual one-quarter reduction, despite an earlier not-guilty plea and a delayed formal plea caused by remote-hearing circumstances.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Birmingham to wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. While serving an earlier extended sentence, he stabbed a fellow prisoner with scissors during a short prison incident.

The sentencing judge treated the offence as category 1 under the relevant guideline, imposed an extended sentence with an 11-year custodial term and a five-year extension period, and ordered it to run consecutively to the existing sentence. The appellant challenged the category, the guilty-plea reduction and the reduction for totality.

The central issues were whether the assault amounted to a sustained or repeated assault indicating greater harm, whether the guilty plea was first indicated at the plea and trial preparation hearing, and whether further adjustment for totality was required.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent stated. The court quashed the 11-year custodial term and substituted an extended sentence comprising eight years’ custody and a five-year extension period.

2. The judge had wrongly placed the offence in category 1. The greater-harm factor of a sustained or repeated assault must be assessed in the sentencing-guideline context: category 1 has a 12-year starting point, whereas category 2 has a six-year starting point. Following the proportionality approach stated in R v Smith (Grant Christopher) [2016] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 8 and the inquiry in R v Xue [2020] EWCA Crim 587, the assault had to be so prolonged or persistent as to take it outside the norm for section 18 offences.

   Only three blows were proved, the incident was short-lived, and it caused one principal injury and minor further injuries. It was therefore category 2, although the weapon and intention to cause more serious harm justified an upward adjustment. The prison setting and the appellant’s serious, recent violence justified a sentence well outside the category range.

3. Under paragraph D2 of the guilty-plea guideline, the decisive time is when the defendant first indicates a guilty plea. The appellant did so at the plea and trial preparation hearing. The later formal plea did not deprive him of the usual one-quarter reduction because the delay resulted from remote-hearing arrangements and the judge’s proper encouragement to obtain legal advice.

4. The court rejected the totality challenge. An offence committed in prison by a serving prisoner ordinarily attracts a consecutive sentence with limited reduction for totality. Starting from 12 years after the upward adjustments, the court reduced the term by one quarter for the plea and by one further year for totality, producing eight years’ custody.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent stated and substituted an extended sentence of eight years’ custody with a five-year extension period: [2021] EWCA Crim 658.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and received an extended sentence with an 11-year custodial term and a five-year extension period, consecutive to the sentence then being served.