R v Patrick Blenman

In sentencing a guideline assault as the lead offence, multiple high-culpability factors may justify an uplift from the guideline starting point before further aggravating features are considered. Serious and lasting psychological harm may place the harm in the highest category.

Where related offending is aggregated into the lead sentence, the court must avoid double counting. It must nevertheless ensure that the total sentence reflects distinct criminality, including false imprisonment, threats with weapons and arson. A notional addition for separate offending may be reduced for totality, but substantial mitigation cannot reduce the sentence below the least proportionate sentence for the overall criminality.

The offender was convicted after trial at Reading Crown Court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, false imprisonment and arson arising from an attack on a former partner in her home. He threatened her with weapons, locked her in the flat, set fire to the carpet and caused her to jump from a third-storey window in fear of being stabbed.

The Recorder imposed concurrent sentences, with 30 months’ imprisonment for the assault as the lead offence. The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the Recorder had adequately reflected the separate criminality and aggravating features while observing totality.

Decision

1. The court granted leave and allowed the Reference. The 30-month sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was unduly lenient. It was quashed and replaced with a sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment. The concurrent sentences for false imprisonment and arson remained undisturbed.

2. The Recorder had correctly selected assault occasioning actual bodily harm as the lead offence and correctly identified a starting point of two years and six months’ custody. The assault involved category 1 harm because it caused serious psychological harm and a substantial impact on the victim. It involved culpability A because the victim was vulnerable in her circumstances, weapons were used to threaten her, and the assault was prolonged.

3. Multiple culpability factors justified an increase from the guideline starting point before account was taken of aggravation. The domestic context and offending under the influence of alcohol were additional aggravating features.

4. The Recorder was entitled to treat the false imprisonment as part of the victim’s vulnerability when aggregating the offending into the lead count. That avoided double counting. However, the sentence still had to reflect the fear caused by the knife and hammer, and the separate criminality of the arson. The arson materially distinguished R v Parchment, in which the victim had also jumped from a window.

5. A notional sentence of four years for the assault and false imprisonment required a further, totality-adjusted addition of six months for arson. The resulting notional sentence of four years and six months was reduced to three years and nine months for the exceptional mitigation and the consequences of imprisonment, but no lower sentence could properly reflect the offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, allowed the Reference, and replaced the 30-month sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm with three years and nine months’ imprisonment: [2023] EWCA Crim 851.

• Crown Court at Reading: Following a trial, the offender was convicted of false imprisonment, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and arson. On 21 April 2023, the Recorder imposed concurrent sentences of 30 months, 20 months and six months respectively.