R v Joe Robert Slack

In sentencing for wounding with intent, whether a knife is a highly dangerous weapon depends on the facts and circumstances, including the force and manner of its use. A disputed account bearing on the circumstances of the offence cannot ordinarily support mitigation without a factual basis for plea or a Newton hearing. A reduction based on custody weighing more heavily because of mental disorder requires evidence addressing the relevant guideline criteria. Substance misuse and previous weapon convictions may materially aggravate the offence. An extended sentence will stand where the sentencing assessment is properly reasoned and is not excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to wounding with intent at the Crown Court at Southampton. He was sentenced to an extended sentence of seven years, comprising five years’ custody and a two-year extended licence period. He appealed against sentence, arguing that the offence was miscategorised, the injury was less serious, insufficient weight was given to mitigation, and the sentencing judge appeared biased.

The appeal concerned the classification of the weapon and harm, the use of an unsubstantiated account of defence of another, the relevance of mental-health evidence under the sentencing guideline, and whether the sentence or extended-sentence decision was excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The five-year custodial term and two-year extended licence period were not excessive, let alone manifestly excessive. The finding of dangerousness and the decision to impose an extended sentence were unchallenged and upheld.
2. Whether a knife is a highly dangerous weapon is determined on the facts and circumstances. The kitchen knife was used with considerable force to attack the victim’s chest and passed completely through his arm. It was therefore highly dangerous and potentially lethal. The approach in R v Alvis of Lee [2022] EWCA Crim 127, reported at [2023] 1 Cr. App. R.(S) 16, supported that conclusion.
3. There was no basis for treating the offence as containing culpability C elements. The alleged defence of the appellant’s father was inconsistent with the prosecution’s account and the surrounding evidence. Because it concerned the circumstances of the offence, the judge was entitled to require a Newton hearing if the appellant wished to rely on it. The court referred to R v Tolera [1999] 1 Cr. App. R. 29, R v Underwood [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 13, and R v Cairns [2013] 2 Cr. App. R.(S) 73.
4. The harm fell squarely within category 2 as grave harm, rather than tending towards category 3. The mental-health material did not justify a reduction in culpability because no mental disorder was shown to be linked to the offence. Nor was there a firm diagnosis or evidence satisfying paragraph 22 of the mental-disorders sentencing guideline, concerning whether custody would weigh more heavily or exacerbate an impairment or disorder. The judge had nevertheless taken account of low mood and suicidal thoughts as personal mitigation.
5. The judge’s extensive interruptions during mitigation were undesirable, but did not create an appearance of bias under the standard in Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357. The judge remained calm and polite and had responded to repeated points he considered unsound.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the appeal against sentence was dismissed and the Crown Court sentence upheld.
• Crown Court at Southampton: the appellant pleaded guilty to wounding with intent and was sentenced on 12 December 2022 to an extended sentence of seven years, comprising five years’ custody and a two-year extended licence period.