R v Georgia Nicholson

When sentencing a young adult for serious violence, the court must apply the relevant offence-specific guideline and may depart from it only where the interests of justice require an exceptional course. Age and immaturity can justify a substantial reduction, but they do not displace the gravity of permanent, life-changing harm. Guilty-plea credit must reflect when the relevant offence was admitted. A sentence indication does not prevent an Attorney General’s reference, and a judge must have lawful power to implement the sentence indicated. Appellate interference with suspension of custody is justified where the decision is plainly wrong in principle.

The Solicitor General referred a sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The respondent had pleaded guilty to wounding with intent under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Crown Court sentenced her to 24 months’ custody suspended for two years, with rehabilitation activity and compensation.

The offending, committed when she was 18, involved a group assault on a taxi-driver using a high-heeled shoe. The victim suffered permanent loss of vision in one eye. The sentencing judge had treated the case as category 1 harm and culpability B, but had misunderstood the maximum custodial term that could be suspended and had applied excessive guilty-plea credit. The central issues were the proper guideline sentence, the effect of youth, delay, pregnancy, compensation and a late plea, and the appropriate sentence on the reference.

1. Reference allowed. The sentence was unduly lenient. The sentencing exercise had gone wrong because the judge had not been assisted with the relevant offence-specific guideline and appeared to believe that a six-year sentence could be suspended, and suspended for three years.
2. Under the relevant guideline, use of the high-heeled shoe as a weapon equivalent placed the offence in medium culpability B. The permanent, irreversible loss of the victim’s eye constituted category 1 harm. The starting point was seven years’ imprisonment, with a range of six to ten years. The victim’s status as a taxi-driver, the use of alcohol and the group attack justified eight years before mitigation.
3. Age and lack of maturity were important mitigation. A reduction of 25 per cent was appropriate, producing six years. Good character, absence of convictions, delay, compensation of £4,000 and the offender’s recent childbirth reduced the sentence further to four years and six months.
4. The relevant offence was admitted only on the day of trial. A 10 per cent guilty-plea reduction was therefore justified, but no more. An earlier admission of the lesser section 20 offence did not justify the larger reduction applied below.
5. The Goodyear procedure does not prevent an Attorney General’s reference of the resulting sentence. The Attorney General’s decision may take account of a guilty plea entered in response to a properly sought and given indication. A sentence indication must also remain within the judge’s lawful sentencing powers.
6. When deciding whether to suspend custody, the court must first consider the Sentencing Council guidance. A suspended sentence remains custodial and serves punishment and deterrence. The Court of Appeal may interfere where the suspension decision is plainly wrong in principle.
7. The Court reduced the sentence to three years’ imprisonment as an act of mercy, taking account of the possibility that the offender’s child might be accommodated with her in a Mother and Baby Unit. The Court could not control whether that placement would occur.

• Crown Court at Warwick: on 30 May 2023, imposed 24 months’ custody suspended for two years, with a 10-day rehabilitation activity requirement and £4,000 compensation.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted leave to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, allowed the reference and imposed three years’ imprisonment.