Garratt, R. v

An Attorney General’s sentence reference should not be allowed merely because the sentence was lenient. The court must decide, in all the circumstances, whether it was unduly lenient. A sentencing judge’s informed assessment of the case, including its mitigating features, remains material to that decision.

A restraining order is not invalid merely because the sentencing record refers to a repealed provision. Where a transitional provision requires a reference to a repealed provision to be read as a reference to the corresponding provision of the Sentencing Code, the order remains valid.

Following a trial in the Crown Court at Portsmouth, John Garratt was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and sentenced to 39 months’ imprisonment. He had headbutted a parcel-delivery driver and punched him while he was on the ground, causing facial fractures requiring surgery. The trial judge also imposed a five-year restraining order.

The Attorney General sought leave under Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 36, to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the sentence, although accepted to be lenient, crossed the threshold of undue leniency. The court also considered the statutory basis for the restraining order.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was not allowed. Leave was granted, but the court held that the 39-month sentence, though lenient, was not unduly lenient.

2. The violence involved a forceful headbutt, followed by at least three punches to the victim’s face while he was on the ground. It caused serious facial fractures requiring surgery. The court regarded the headbutt as demonstrating higher culpability. It assessed the offence as at the lower end of Category 2, or on the cusp between Categories 2 and 3, of the definitive Guideline. That assessment produced a starting point of five years’ imprisonment.

3. The court treated the public daytime location, the continuing effects on the victim, and attempts to mislead the police and blame another person as aggravating features. It accepted that substantial personal mitigation balanced those features. It also accepted the trial judge’s nine-month reduction for the particularly grave prison conditions during the coronavirus pandemic and the impact of immediate custody on the offender’s young family. Its own assessment would have produced four years and three months’ imprisonment, but that did not make the imposed sentence unduly lenient.

4. The restraining order was valid. Although section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 had been repealed before the offender’s conviction, paragraph 4 of Schedule 27 to the Sentencing Act 2020 required the reference in the court record to be read as including the corresponding provision of the Sentencing Code.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted leave for an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but did not allow the reference because the sentence was lenient rather than unduly lenient.
• Crown Court at Portsmouth: on 15 March 2021, convicted the offender after trial of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and imposed 39 months’ imprisonment and a five-year restraining order.