R v Keisha Olivia Harty

A sentencing court must state in open court the days spent in custody awaiting extradition that count towards sentence under Sentencing Act 2020, section 327. Where the court has already allowed credit on an incorrect estimate, the proper correction is to reduce the sentence by the additional uncredited period.

In sentencing for wounding with intent, a broken glass used to strike the complainant’s face may properly increase seriousness within medium culpability, even if it is not classified as a highly dangerous weapon. The existence of more serious conceivable cases does not diminish the offender’s culpability on the facts found.

The appellant was sentenced in the Crown Court at Liverpool for wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and for failing to surrender, contrary to section 6 of the Bail Act 1976. She had used a broken wine glass to inflict serious facial lacerations on the complainant.

She sought permission to appeal the five-year-and-four-month sentence for the section 18 offence. She also challenged the treatment of time spent in custody in Ireland awaiting extradition. The court considered whether the section 18 sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, and the credit required for 55 days of extradition-related remand custody.

1. The appeal concerning the Bail Act sentence was allowed to the limited extent of a further 25-day reduction. Section 327 of the Sentencing Act 2020 required the sentencing judge to specify in open court the days spent in custody awaiting extradition. The judge had attempted to allow credit, but had been told that the relevant period was about 30 days rather than its agreed length of 55 days. The proper pragmatic correction was therefore to reduce that sentence by the additional 25 days, rather than credit the full period twice.

2. Permission to appeal the sentence for the section 18 offence was refused. The judge correctly placed the offence in medium culpability, category B, and category 2 harm. A pre-plea term of six years was within the guideline range of four to seven years and was a year below its upper limit.

3. The judge was entitled to treat the nature and use of the broken wine glass as aggravating features which elevated seriousness within category B. The appellant had picked up the glass after overturning the table, taken it into the kitchen and lunged at the complainant’s face. That conduct was not as spontaneous as submitted. The possibility that an intentionally broken or pre-carried weapon might support higher culpability did not reduce the seriousness of this offending.

4. The sentencing judge had considered the appellant’s personal mitigation and was entitled to give it limited weight in light of the pre-sentence report. The resulting sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

5. The restraining order had in fact been imposed under section 360 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Its mistaken recording as made under repealed section 5 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 did not affect its lawfulness, because paragraph 4 of Schedule 27 to the 2020 Act deemed references to repealed provisions to refer to their corresponding Sentencing Code provisions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 163, reduced the sentence for failure to surrender by a further 25 days and refused permission to appeal the sentence for wounding with intent.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: On 11 November 2022, imposed five years and four months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent and a consecutive two months’ imprisonment for failure to surrender.