R v Arnole Mane

In assessing culpability for wounding with intent, a sentencing judge may treat an apparently everyday implement as analogous to a highly dangerous weapon where its sharpness, manner of use and the offender’s contingent purpose in carrying it justify that assessment. The fact that the implement is not dangerous per se, or was used in a confrontation, does not preclude that conclusion.

An appellate court will not interfere with the sentencing judge’s assessment of personal mitigation unless there is an error of principle or the allowance falls outside the permissible range. Grave family hardship may be material, but does not require suspension where the sentence and mitigation assessment remain within that range.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Isleworth to wounding with intent, possession of an offensive weapon and dangerous driving. He stabbed a lorry driver once in the neck with a screwdriver after a road-rage confrontation.

The Recorder imposed two years and four months’ imprisonment for the wounding, with a concurrent sentence for the weapon offence. The applicant sought leave to appeal, contending that the Recorder had overstated culpability by treating the screwdriver as analogous to a highly dangerous weapon. He also relied on the exceptional hardship to his severely disabled children if he remained in custody.

The central issue was whether the sentence was arguably contrary to principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Application for leave to appeal refused. The sentence was neither arguably contrary to principle nor arguably manifestly excessive.

2. The Recorder was entitled to place the offence on the borderline between culpability categories A and B. The screwdriver was sharp enough to be used as a knife and had been brought to the scene with no apparent purpose other than, at least contingently, as a weapon. The applicant’s guilty plea to possession of an offensive weapon reinforced that conclusion.

3. There was no impermissible double counting. An offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 may be committed with or without a wide variety of weapons. Nor did the Sentencing Guidelines or the authorities support a distinction between inherently dangerous objects and ordinary objects used in a heated moment. The conviction itself established an intent to cause really serious harm.

4. The starting point was therefore robust and, in any event, fell within the category B3 range. The judge could alternatively have treated the offence as category B and increased the starting point to reflect deliberate, contingent arming, an aspect of category A premeditation.

5. The applicant’s family circumstances were exceptionally sad and had seriously affected his children. However, reduction for mitigation is an evaluative sentencing judgment. The Recorder had carefully considered those circumstances, reduced the sentence by a year and specifically considered the children’s welfare. The case was not a sole-carer case in the full sense. The allowance for mitigation was within the range of permissible sentencing decisions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2024] EWCA Crim 754.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: On 18 January 2024, the Recorder sentenced the applicant to two years and four months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent, with a concurrent six-month sentence for possession of an offensive weapon.