R v Gary Anthony Reid

An assault may fall within category 1 of the relevant sentencing guideline where it is prolonged or persistent; both qualities are unnecessary. The assessment is fact-specific. Separate phases may amount to a sustained attack, particularly where they occur over a significant period and involve repeated acts causing actual bodily harm. Serious psychological harm can justify category 1 harm for an offence under section 47. Domestic context and strangulation may aggravate culpability. An appellate court will not interfere where the sentence reflects a permissible assessment of these matters, mitigation and the guilty plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Nottingham to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. On 21 December 2022 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

With leave of the single judge, he appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. He challenged the categorisation of the offending, arguing that it was not prolonged or persistent and that the harm did not fall within the highest category. He also argued that aggravating features had been given excessive weight and mitigation insufficient weight. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge’s approach and sentence were properly open on the evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence was unimpeachable.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offending in category 1. An assault may be prolonged or persistent; it need not be both. Whether either description applies is a fact-specific judgment. The incident had four separate phases, at least three of which appeared to have caused actual bodily harm, and unfolded over a significant period. It was properly treated as a sustained attack. The court derived little assistance from R v Xue [2020] EWCA Crim 587, which concerned materially different circumstances.
3. The judge also had a sufficient evidential basis for finding category 1 harm. The photographs showed numerous bruises, abrasions and minor lacerations. Those injuries had to be considered with the victim’s account of the physical effects and the serious psychological consequences of the assault.
4. The domestic context, involving a relationship of trust, was an aggravating feature. The court noted that strangulation was another factor specified in the relevant guideline and that the judge could have referred to it. The judge’s use of the category starting point was, if anything, merciful, since another judge might have made an upward adjustment for the combination of culpability factors.
5. The judge was entitled to give limited weight to the appellant’s progress in custody and other mitigation after considering them. The previous convictions were not treated as aggravating, although older convictions for offences against the person might have had some relevance. The guilty-plea reduction was unchallenged. In the circumstances, there was no basis for appellate interference with the overall sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 31 March 2023, dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: On 21 December 2022, sentenced the appellant to two years’ imprisonment after his guilty plea to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.