R v Matthew Farmer

Significant planning or premeditation, including waiting for a victim and fashioning a weapon, supports a Category A high-culpability assessment under the Definitive Guideline on Assault. Serious psychological harm may justify a sentence at the top of the applicable harm category. A one-third guilty-plea reduction is unavailable where the defendant denied guilt in the Magistrates’ Court and first pleaded guilty at a Crown Court plea and trial preparation hearing; a 25 per cent reduction may instead apply. Consecutive sentences are consistent with totality where offences occurred at separate times and places and involved separate victims. The aggregate sentence must remain just, proportionate and not manifestly excessive.

Following a trial in the Crown Court at Basildon, Matthew Farmer was sentenced on 26 May 2022 to seven years’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He had also pleaded guilty to possessing a bladed article and received a consecutive sentence of 12 months, making eight years in total.

He appealed with leave, arguing that the wounding offence had been placed in the wrong culpability category, that personal mitigation and psychological harm had been wrongly assessed, that he should have received one-third credit for his guilty plea to possessing the bladed article, and that the total sentence breached the principle of totality.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed. Neither the individual sentences nor the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Wounding offence. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offence in Category A high culpability under the Definitive Guideline on Assault. The appellant had waited outside the restaurant, changed position to avoid detection and fashioned a weapon by sharpening a can. Those facts demonstrated significant planning and premeditation.
2. The judge was also entitled to place the offence at the top of the Category 3A harm range. The victim had suffered severe psychological consequences and required psychiatric treatment. The aggravating factors that the offence was committed while the appellant was on bail and under the influence of alcohol were balanced against the absence of relevant previous convictions. A sentence of seven years was therefore not erroneous.
3. Bladed article offence. The appellant had denied guilt in the Magistrates’ Court and did not indicate that he would plead guilty to the alternative offence of possessing a bladed article. His first guilty plea was entered at the Crown Court plea and trial preparation hearing. He was therefore not entitled to a one-third reduction. The 25 per cent reduction applied by the judge was appropriate. The unrelated road traffic accident and resulting hand injury did not mitigate culpability. A 12-month sentence was not manifestly excessive when viewed separately.
4. Totality. Consecutive sentences were permissible because the offences were committed at different times and locations and involved separate victims. Considering the seriousness of the possession offence and the vicious, unprovoked and premeditated attack, the total sentence of eight years was just and proportionate, although severe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the sentences imposed by the Crown Court at Basildon on 26 May 2022.