R v Harwood

A sentencer may treat an offender’s failure to obtain medical assistance for a gravely injured victim as an aggravating feature. This does not amount to double punishment merely because the failure follows the conduct constituting the offence.

In assessing dangerousness, the court must apply the statutory criteria to all the evidence. It is not bound by a pre-sentence report’s assessment, even where that assessment describes the issue as finely balanced and the offender has a limited history of serious violence.

The applicant was convicted at Luton Crown Court of attempted murder and received an extended sentence of 20 years, comprising 16 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period. The judge found that he had inflicted life-threatening injuries and was dangerous.

His earlier applications for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction had been refused in R v Peter Harwood [2020] EWCA Crim 969. He renewed applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge.

The issues were whether the sentence was excessive or wrong in principle, including the treatment of the failure to seek medical help, the guideline categorisation, mitigation, and the finding of dangerousness.

1. The applications were refused. There was no arguable basis for challenging the sentence, and no good reason for the substantial delay in seeking permission to appeal.

2. The judge was entitled to regard the applicant’s failure to seek medical treatment for the victim as a seriously aggravating feature. The judge had not imposed an additional year’s punishment for that failure. He had properly weighed it among the aggravating features of an attempted murder in which the victim was left with life-threatening and long-term injuries.

3. The judge correctly placed the offence at the top of level 3 under the applicable sentencing guideline. The sustained violence, the intention to kill, the absence of mitigation relating to the offence, and the grave and enduring harm to the victim justified that assessment. Challenges to the evidence underlying the conviction fell outside the scope of this sentence appeal.

4. The judge was also entitled to find dangerousness. Although the applicant’s prior record disclosed limited violence and the pre-sentence report regarded the issue as finely balanced, the report did not bind the court. The judge had applied the statutory criteria and could properly rely on the exceptional violence of this offence, its escalation from earlier offending, and the risk of serious harm to adult males perceived to have wronged the applicant.

5. The extended sentence imposed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was neither arguably excessive nor wrong in principle. The extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence were refused.
• Crown Court at Luton: On 24 November 2016, the applicant was convicted of attempted murder. On 16 December 2016, he received an extended sentence of 20 years under section 226 A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.