REGINA v CHRISTOPHER SHAUN HALE & Ors.

Sentencing categorisation is fact-specific. A sustained attack involving repeated punches and kicks may properly be treated as prolonged and persistent, placing culpability in Category A. There is no inflexible rule requiring concurrent sentences for offences arising from one incident. Consecutive sentences may be appropriate where separate assaults on separate victims would not have their overall criminality sufficiently reflected by concurrent terms, provided the total sentence is just and proportionate.

An imperfect explanation of the sequencing of totality and guilty-plea reductions does not make a sentence wrong in principle where the sentencing judge’s intended calculation can be understood. Personal mental-health mitigation may carry limited weight where it does not reduce culpability and is outweighed by serious repeat violent offending.

The appellants pleaded guilty to two offences under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Each had participated in a sustained, unprovoked assault on two serving Royal Navy personnel, causing serious injuries and significant effects on the complainants’ careers.

At Portsmouth Crown Court, HHJ Tim Mousley QC imposed consecutive sentences of two and three years’ imprisonment, making five years in total. Hale’s four-month suspended sentence was activated concurrently. Both appellants appealed against sentence, challenging the Category A assessment, consecutive terms, the explanation of totality and guilty-plea credit, and the overall severity. Lewsley also relied on personal and mental-health mitigation.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The five-year total sentences were not manifestly excessive.
2. The judge was entitled to place both offences in Category A for culpability. The assaults were prolonged and persistent: Mr Morris was repeatedly punched and kicked on the ground, and Mr Walker was pursued, taken to the ground, and punched and kicked. The court noted the fact-specific approach in R v Xue [2020] EWCA Crim 587, but reached its conclusion on the evidence of these sustained attacks.
3. Consecutive sentences were lawful and appropriate. The totality guideline contains no inflexible rule governing concurrent or consecutive terms. Its overriding principle is that the overall sentence must be just and proportionate. Although the offences arose in the same incident, they were separate assaults upon separate victims and concurrent sentences would not sufficiently reflect the overall criminality.
4. The sentencing judge’s explanation of the final calculation was less clear than it should have been. He ought preferably to have identified the totality reduction before applying credit for the guilty pleas. Nevertheless, his intention could be understood: the 74-month notional total was reduced by about seven to eight months for totality and then by slightly more than 10 per cent for the late pleas. The approach was not wrong in principle.
5. Lewsley’s depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder did not reduce his culpability. The judge was entitled to treat those matters as limited personal mitigation, given that they were not severe and were outweighed by the seriousness of the offending and his record of repeat violence. The final sentences properly reflected the grave injuries, the aggravating circumstances, the appellants’ records, totality, and the appropriate credit for plea.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — appeals against sentence dismissed: [2022] EWCA Crim 1060.
• Portsmouth Crown Court — on 21 January 2022, HHJ Tim Mousley QC imposed consecutive terms of two and three years’ imprisonment for the two section 20 offences, producing a total of five years.