R v John Joseph Hall

In an appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal is concerned with whether the sentence imposed on the individual offender was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Comparisons with co-offenders will rarely establish error, particularly where their ages, maturity, concurrent sentences, or individual aggravating features differ.

For attempted grievous bodily harm with intent, sentence should reflect the guideline for the substantive offence, adjusted for its inchoate character. Intended harm remains highly material. Filming a violent group attack may constitute a serious aggravating feature because it adds degradation and humiliation for the victim.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Warwick to attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. He had joined a group attack on a victim who was on the ground, kicking or stamping on him and filming part of the assault.

On 9 February 2022, the sentencing judge imposed 39 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed with leave, contending that the categorisation was wrong, that further credit should have been given because the offence was an attempt, and that the sentence lacked parity with sentences imposed on co-defendants and failed adequately to reflect personal mitigation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 39 months’ imprisonment was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. Parity with co-offenders did not assist the appellant. The Court of Appeal’s task was to assess the sentence imposed for the particular offence and offender. The identified co-offenders were 17 at the time of their offending and therefore less mature in legal terms. One also received a concurrent sentence while being sentenced for much more serious offending.

3. The appellant had an individual aggravating feature. Unlike the others, he used his telephone to film the attack. The court regarded this as serious additional degradation and humiliation of the victim.

4. The sentencing judge correctly approached the attempted offence by reference to the substantive offence and its applicable sentencing guideline, with an adjustment for its inchoate nature. The intended harm was highly relevant. The judge had selected the lower harm category to reflect that the offence was an attempt and had not failed to allow for that feature.

5. The judge had also taken account of the appellant’s youth, lack of previous convictions, work record, family circumstances, positive references and the conditions of imprisonment during the Covid pandemic. Those matters did not outweigh the seriousness of the prolonged and vicious group attack. No further reduction was justified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against a sentence of 39 months’ imprisonment: [2022] EWCA Crim 1209.

• Crown Court at Warwick: Following a guilty plea to attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, imposed 39 months’ imprisonment on 9 February 2022.