Regina v Ravinder Soni

Under the Sentencing Council Guideline on Assault, the starting point and category range are not rigid limits. Multiple culpability features may justify an increase from the starting point before further aggravating and mitigating factors are considered. Relevant previous offending, offending while on licence or under the influence of alcohol, use of a vehicle as a weapon, multiple victims and the need to reflect overall criminality may justify a sentence outside the category range. A sentence is not arguably manifestly excessive where the combined gravity of the offending and the offender’s history makes the uplift proportionate. An extension of time and leave to appeal may be refused where there is no arguable merit and no good reason for delay.

The applicant pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, together with further assault and offensive-weapon offences. On 27 January 2022, Her Honour Judge Buckingham, sitting at Birmingham Crown Court, imposed an extended determinate sentence of 13 years under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising eight years’ custody and five years’ extended licence, with concurrent sentences for the additional offences.

The applicant sought a 29-day extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence. The single judge had found no arguable merit. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge’s starting point of 10 years and eight months before guilty-plea credit, and the resulting sentence, were excessive.

The renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. The court confirmed that the offending on the lead count was properly placed in Category A3 under the Sentencing Council Guideline on Assault. Culpability was high because of significant premeditation, use of a vehicle as a weapon, the persistent baseball-bat attack on a victim lying on the ground and the revenge motive. Harm fell within Category 3 [14].
2. The five-year starting point and four-to-seven-year category range were not rigid limits. The Guideline expressly permitted multiple culpability features to justify an increase from the starting point before other aggravating and mitigating factors were considered [15].
3. The offending was further aggravated by the applicant’s previous conviction for the same offence, an earlier serious affray, offending while on licence and under the influence of alcohol, the victim’s work as a security guard and the terror caused to bystanders. The sentence also had to reflect the applicant’s overall criminality, including attacks on separate victims and repeated use of a vehicle as a weapon [15]–[16].
4. The judge had allowed only limited personal mitigation. An overall term of 10 years and eight months before the 25% guilty-plea discount was not arguably manifestly excessive. The total sentence was unarguably proportionate to the offending [16].
5. There was no arguable merit in an appeal and no good reason for the delay, which appeared to result from a change of legal team. The necessary extension of time was therefore refused, and the renewed application was refused [17].

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2022] EWCA Crim 1158.
2. Birmingham Crown Court: on 27 January 2022, Her Honour Judge Buckingham imposed an extended determinate sentence of 13 years under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020.