R v Daniel Watson

For a section 20 unlawful-wounding sentence, absence of intent to cause any injury does not automatically make category C applicable. Where a weapon is used, the offence may remain in category B; lack of intent is addressed by adjustment within the applicable range according to the facts. Permanent facial scarring may place harm in category 2. A highly reckless act may justify little or no reduction for lack of intent. Serious aggravating features, including domestic context, alcohol, relevant previous offending and harmful post-offence conduct, may justify a sentence at the top of or beyond the guideline range. An incorrect sentencing observation does not require appellate intervention where the sentence is otherwise justified and not manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Manchester to unlawful wounding contrary to section 20. He relied on a basis of plea stating that he had not intended the glass to make contact or to cause injury. The Recorder treated the offence as category B2, identified a three-year notional sentence, and imposed 28 months’ imprisonment after credit for the guilty plea.

The appeal concerned whether the Recorder had failed to give proper effect to the lack of intent, and whether the three-year starting point was excessive.

Appeal refused. The court accepted that the Recorder’s statement that lack of intent to cause injury was inherent in a section 20 offence was wrong. A section 20 offence involves a lack of intent to cause really serious injury, but the basis of plea in this case went further by denying any intention to cause injury. The question was whether that error made the starting point too high.

1. The appropriate culpability category was B2. The use of a weapon, namely the glass, placed the offence in category B under the Sentencing Guidelines. Category C was applicable only where no weapon had been used. The absence of intent did not therefore require category C. The issue of intent could instead be reflected by a downward adjustment within the applicable range. The court also considered that the assault was not clearly impulsive or spontaneous, since throwing the glass followed the initial throwing of the drink.
2. Harm was properly placed in category 2 because the victim suffered permanent facial scarring.
3. The aggravating factors were substantial. They included alcohol, the domestic setting, previous convictions for violence, a previous conviction for malicious communications to the victim, poor compliance with court orders, attempts to deter reporting, and offensive post-incident communications. Those matters justified a notional sentence at the top of, or potentially beyond, the recommended range.
4. Lack of intent could significantly reduce culpability depending on the circumstances. Here, however, throwing a glass in a small room after deliberately throwing a drink was highly reckless. It justified no significant downward adjustment. The suggested remorse and wish to apologise were unsupported and contradicted by the appellant’s subsequent messages.

The three-year starting point was justified and was not manifestly excessive. Since the appeal was confined to that starting point, the appeal against sentence was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 645, the court refused the appeal against sentence and upheld the three-year starting point.
2. Crown Court at Manchester: On 2 December 2022, the Recorder sentenced the appellant to 28 months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea.