R v James Leroy Russell

When resentencing for multiple violent offences, a court may impose consecutive terms for offences against different victims. It must nevertheless apply totality. Where separate assaults on emergency workers arise in the same course of events, making each term consecutive to the principal sentence may produce an excessive aggregate term.

For assault occasioning actual bodily harm, serious and extensive injuries may place harm between guideline categories. A sentence at the upper end of the resulting range may properly be increased for extensive, relevant convictions for violence. A guilty-plea reduction is then applied to that starting point.

The appellant pleaded guilty to criminal damage and two assaults on emergency workers in the Magistrates’ Court. He was committed for sentence under section 20 of the Sentencing Act 2020. A charge of assault with intent was sent to the Crown Court, where he pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

At Southampton Crown Court, Recorder Tait imposed 32 months’ imprisonment for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm and two consecutive terms of six months for the assaults on police officers, producing a total of 44 months. The appellant appealed against sentence. The issues were whether the individual terms were excessive and whether the judge had properly applied totality.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court re-exercised the sentencing discretion because the recorder had not adequately explained the categorisation of the principal assault, the four-year pre-credit term, or the treatment of totality.

2. The assault occasioning actual bodily harm was culpability A and at the top of that range. The serious and extensive injuries placed harm close to Category 1, although between Categories 1 and 2. A starting point of three years and three months was appropriate by reference to the assault alone. The appellant’s extensive and relevant record for violent offences, including against female partners, was a significant aggravating feature. It justified an uplift to four years. After the full one-third credit for the guilty plea, 32 months was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

3. The assaults on the police officers were separate violence against victims different from the victim of the principal assault. A consecutive term was therefore justified. Applying the reasoning in R v Yearwood [2024] EWCA Crim 1094, the Crown Court could take nine months as the starting point for each assault, notwithstanding the six-month maximum applicable in the circumstances. After guilty-plea credit, the six-month terms were stern but not excessive.

4. The recorder erred by making both six-month terms consecutive. Totality permitted the first to be consecutive to the 32-month term, but required the second to run concurrently. The aggregate sentence was accordingly varied from 44 months to 38 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the sentence appeal to the limited extent of making the second six-month sentence concurrent, reducing the total from 44 to 38 months: [2024] EWCA Crim 1334.
• Crown Court at Southampton — On 27 March 2024, Recorder Tait imposed 32 months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and two consecutive six-month terms for assaults on emergency workers, totalling 44 months.