R v Martin Adams

A sentencing guideline may permit a notional sentence above the top of the applicable category range where aggravating features justify that course. Recent relevant convictions are a particularly potent factor. The extent of any uplift is a matter for the sentencing judge’s discretionary judgment on the facts. On appeal, the Court of Appeal will generally not interfere absent an error of principle unless the sentence falls outside the range reasonably open to the judge. A sentence may be severe without being manifestly excessive.

Martin Adams appealed against a sentence imposed at Portsmouth Crown Court. After pleading guilty to possessing an offensive weapon contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, he received 27 months’ imprisonment. The offence involved holding the broken stem of a wine glass during a pub altercation. He accepted that custody was appropriate and did not challenge the offence category. He argued that the aggravating features had produced a manifestly excessive sentence and that a sentence of 24 months or less should have been considered for suspension. The central issues were the permissible uplift above the guideline range and the scope of appellate intervention.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The custody threshold was rightly conceded. The offence was not categorised too highly. Although the shattered stem was a dangerous weapon, treating it as similar to a bladed article so as to place the offence in category 1 would have been mistaken. The facts justified a starting point towards the top of category B1.
2. The aggravating features were severe. The convictions for attempted murder in 2011 and grievous bodily harm in 2018 were relatively recent and highly relevant. Together with the index offence and the pre-sentence report, they disclosed a disturbing pattern of serious violence, readily triggered by alcohol. The older convictions underscored that pattern, although the substantial upward adjustment was justified even without them.
3. The applicable guideline expressly contemplated a notional sentence above the top of the category range. Recent relevant convictions were a particularly potent factor. The judge was therefore entitled to move beyond the category B1 range and arrive at a notional sentence of 30 months before credit for the late guilty plea.
4. The extent of an uplift was a matter for discretionary judgment on the individual facts. In the absence of an error of principle, appellate intervention was appropriate only if the ultimate sentence fell outside the range reasonably open to the judge.
5. The resulting 27-month sentence was severe, but was not manifestly excessive. The question of suspension therefore did not arise.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 26 January 2024, the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 108.
• Crown Court at Portsmouth: On 29 September 2023, HHJ Ashworth sentenced the appellant to 27 months’ imprisonment.