R v Michael George Edwards Jones

Where several high-culpability features are present in a section 18 wounding, each must receive appropriate weight. A case involving a highly dangerous weapon, a prolonged assault and suffocation, with harm at the upper end of category 2, requires a substantial upward movement from the guideline starting point before aggravation and mitigation are assessed.

Domestic abuse is an aggravating context because it violates the trust and security of an intimate relationship. Where the circumstances and relevant previous convictions indicate a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences, the court must address dangerousness. A psychiatric report not directed to that issue does not remove the need for a suitable pre-sentence report or, where the statutory criteria are met, an extended sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to wounding his partner with intent to do grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 18 of the 1861 Act. During a prolonged domestic assault he repeatedly assaulted, suffocated and threatened her before stabbing her in the abdomen. She required emergency surgery and suffered lasting physical and psychological effects.

On 6 June 2022, the Crown Court imposed six years’ imprisonment after applying a 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea. The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. He also submitted that the court should have considered an extended sentence for dangerous offenders.

The central issues were whether the sentence properly reflected the guideline factors and whether the offender posed a significant risk of serious harm requiring an extended sentence.

1. The court granted leave to refer, held that the six-year sentence was unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted an extended sentence of ten years and six months. This comprised seven years and six months’ custody and a three-year extended licence period. The restraining order remained in force.

2. The offence was correctly placed in culpability category A and at the upper end of harm category 2. However, the sentencing judge had not given separate appropriate weight to the repeated suffocation. That was a third category A factor, in addition to the use of a highly dangerous weapon and the prolonged assault. It was particularly serious because it caused the victim terror and fear of death. Those features required a substantial upward movement from the guideline starting point before aggravating and mitigating factors were considered.

3. The domestic context made the offending more serious because it violated the trust and security ordinarily present in an intimate relationship. Read with the offender’s previous violence towards partners and the cruel threats made during the assault, the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigation. A sentence of at least ten years before guilty-plea credit was required.

4. Dangerousness should clearly have been considered. The available psychiatric report was not directed to that issue, so the court below should have obtained a suitable pre-sentence report. On the offence circumstances, previous convictions, psychiatric evidence and the later probation reports, there was a significant risk that future partners would suffer serious harm through further specified offences. The offender’s stated wish to address alcohol dependency and mental-health problems did not negate that risk, and a substantial custodial term would not sufficiently reduce it. An extended sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Code was therefore necessary and appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On an Attorney General reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted an extended sentence.
• Sheffield Crown Court — On 6 June 2022, following a guilty plea to wounding with intent, imposed six years’ imprisonment and an indefinite restraining order.