R v Mehmet Deniz

For attempted murder sentencing, category 2 harm under the applicable guideline does not require permanent, irreversible or lifelong injury. Such consequences distinguish category 1; serious physical or psychological harm outside category 1 may properly fall within category 2.

Harm classification is an evaluative decision for the sentencing judge and is not controlled by counsel’s agreed submissions. A spontaneous initial attack may nevertheless involve heightened culpability where violence is sustained and medical assistance is deliberately withheld in expectation that the victim may die. The appellate question remains whether the total sentence is manifestly excessive, having regard to culpability, harm, aggravation and mitigation.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Luton to attempted murder after a sustained domestic attack on his estranged wife using a metal torch. He inflicted serious head, scalp and facial injuries, delayed and obstructed her access to medical help, and left her believing that an ambulance had been called.

On 20 May 2022, the sentencing judge imposed an extended determinate sentence of 20 years, comprising 16 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period, under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The appellant challenged the categorisation of culpability and harm, the allowance for mitigation, and the overall length of the sentence.

The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extended determinate sentence of 20 years was not manifestly excessive. It was just and proportionate to the offending as a whole.

2. The judge was entitled to place the offending in the guideline’s medium-culpability category C. The metal torch was not brought to the scene for use as a weapon, and the initial assault was spontaneous. However, the violence continued over time with pauses before further blows. The appellant threatened that the victim would die and deliberately denied her medical assistance. Withholding assistance in the expectation that a victim will die was, in these circumstances, no less material to culpability than premeditation.

3. The judge was also entitled to classify harm as category 2. Category 1 is reserved for permanent injury, disability, or comparable long-term consequences. Category 2 instead covers serious physical or psychological harm not within category 1. The victim’s deep head and facial lacerations, exposed skull and skin graft, hospitalisation, ongoing dizziness, headaches, trauma and fear supported that assessment. A recovery from physical injuries within a year did not prevent the injuries from being serious. The judge was not bound by the parties’ submissions on the harm category.

4. Even if a lower point within the category 2 range could have reflected the eventual resolution of much of the physical injury, the higher culpability features justified the same notional sentence. The court also found no basis to interfere with the 20 per cent credit for the guilty plea. The allowance was discretionary and reflected both the late plea and the evidence that the appellant had feigned psychosis.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2022] EWCA Crim 1817.
• Crown Court at Luton: on 20 May 2022 imposed an extended determinate sentence of 20 years for attempted murder.