REGINA v JOHN IAN PULLIN

When sentencing an attempted offence, the court should first assess the sentence appropriate for the completed offence, including intended and likely harm, and then allow a reduction for the attempt. The reduction may be modest where the evidence shows that the offender intended, and was likely, to inflict grave injury. Multiple high-culpability features and serious aggravating circumstances may justify moving substantially above the guideline starting point. Concurrent sentences for associated offences must still reflect their additional criminality. For dangerousness, the question is whether there is a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences. A pattern of violent offending, together with one exceptionally serious and irrational attack, may establish that risk. Where a determinate sentence would not adequately protect the public, an extended sentence may be imposed although a life sentence is unnecessary.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence imposed on John Ian Pullin by the Crown Court at Carlisle under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, alleging that it was unduly lenient. Pullin had pleaded guilty to attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, two assaults by beating, criminal damage and breach of a criminal behaviour order.

The Recorder imposed an aggregate sentence of three years and eight months’ imprisonment. The reference raised the proper categorisation and sentence for the attempted grievous bodily harm, the effect of the offender’s extensive violent antecedents and the additional offences, and whether a finding of dangerousness and an extended sentence could be made without a pre-sentence report.

1. Reference and sentence. Leave was granted. The sentence was unduly lenient and required substantial increase.
2. Attempted offence. Applying the approach in R v Laverick [2015] EWCA Crim 1059 and Attorney General’s Reference (R v Muthuraja) [2019] EWCA Crim 1740; [2020] 1 Cr App R(S) 46, the court first assessed the sentence that would have been imposed had the offence been completed and then allowed a reduction for the attempt. The evidence showed a persistent attack on the head of a defenceless victim, involving shod feet and additional weapons. The intended and likely harm placed the completed offence within category 2A, towards its upper end. Multiple culpability features required movement from the seven-year starting point to at least nine years. Serious aggravating features, including the offender’s record, offending while on licence and the public setting, justified a notional ten-year sentence. The maximum appropriate reduction for the attempt was one year.
3. Additional offences. Although concurrent sentences for the assaults and criminal damage were permissible, their significant additional criminality had to be reflected in the sentence for the principal offence. The principal sentence was therefore assessed at nine and a half years before mitigation and totality. Applying the 25 per cent guilty plea reduction produced a custodial term of seven years and one month.
4. Dangerousness. Under the Sentencing Act 2020, the question was whether there was a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm from further specified offences. The test concerned risk, and did not require the previous offences to be as serious as the present offence. The offender’s repeated violent convictions, the current extreme and irrational attack, and the contemporaneous offending established the necessary risk. A pre-sentence report could and should have been obtained, but the court was able to make the finding without relying on one. The later report merely confirmed the conclusion.
5. Order. A life sentence was unnecessary, but a determinate sentence was insufficient to protect the public. An extended sentence was imposed on count 1, comprising seven years and one month’s custody and an extended licence period of four years. The remaining elements of the sentence were maintained, except that the eight-month sentence for breach of the criminal behaviour order was made concurrent rather than consecutive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). On 12 July 2022, the court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, found the sentence unduly lenient, and substituted an extended sentence.
2. Crown Court at Carlisle. On 8 April 2022, the Recorder sentenced Pullin to an aggregate of three years and eight months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.