R v Connor Wood

A sentencing court should not treat as aggravation a feature already used to place an offence in a higher culpability category. It may, however, take separate aggravating features into account.

A parity challenge succeeds only where an unexplained difference between co-offenders’ sentences would cause a right-thinking member of the public to consider that the administration of justice had gone wrong. A material difference in the offending defeats that complaint.

When deciding whether to suspend a custodial term, the court must give proper cumulative weight to rehabilitation prospects, personal mitigation and the impact on others. Even very serious violence does not automatically require immediate custody where appropriate punishment can be achieved by suspension.

R v Connor Wood concerned an appeal against a sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. After pleading guilty, the appellant was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

The Crown Court at Warwick imposed 12 months’ immediate imprisonment. A co-defendant, who had punched the complainant, received an eight-month suspended sentence. The appellant had twice kicked the complainant while he was on the ground, including a kick to the head.

On leave granted by the single judge, the appellant challenged the sentence’s severity and the refusal to suspend it. He relied in particular on alleged parity with the co-defendant. The central issue was whether immediate custody was necessary despite the appellant’s strong mitigation and high prospects of rehabilitation.

Decision

1. The court allowed the sentence appeal. It quashed the sentence of immediate imprisonment and substituted a 12-month sentence suspended for 24 months.

2. The appellant’s culpability properly fell within Category A because he kicked the complainant in the head while the complainant lay on the ground and was vulnerable. The judge had, however, double-counted the use of a shod foot as an aggravating feature. Other aggravating matters remained: joint action, intoxication and a public assault. The resulting 18-month term, reduced to 12 months for the guilty plea, was severe but not manifestly excessive.

3. The parity ground failed. The court applied the principles stated in R v Fawcett (Kenneth John) [1983] 5 Cr.App.R (S) 158, R v Saliuka [2014] EWCA Crim 1907, R v Dyer [2013] EWCA Crim 2114, and R v Hussain (Khalid) [2018] EWCA Crim 290. The appellant’s second kick, to the complainant’s head, materially distinguished his offending from Mawby’s punch. A right-thinking member of the public would not consider the different sentences an injustice.

4. Nevertheless, the judge gave insufficient weight to the cumulative factors favouring suspension. The appellant had previous good character, employment, remorse, a low risk of reoffending and high prospects of rehabilitation. He was young and provided needed support to an older relative. The seriousness of a kick to the head was already reflected in the longer term imposed. On these facts, appropriate punishment did not require immediate custody.

5. No conditions were attached because of time already spent in custody. The appellant was ordered to pay £1,000 compensation within 12 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2024] EWCA Crim 1642, allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed immediate custody and imposed a 12-month sentence suspended for 24 months.
• Crown Court at Warwick — on 24 April 2024, imposed 12 months’ immediate imprisonment following the appellant’s guilty plea to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
• Leamington Spa Magistrates’ Court — on 9 February 2024, committed the appellant for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020.