R v Karley Harding

A sentencing court considering immediate custody for a primary carer must have sufficient reliable information about the proposed care of dependent children. Where the arrangements require assessment or remain uncertain, the hearing should be adjourned for appropriate investigation.

The impact on children must be balanced against punishment, victims’ interests, deterrence and the gravity of the offending. Even for very serious offending, a suspended sentence may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances after a cumulative assessment of mitigation, rehabilitation prospects, delay, health and the effect on dependants.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Croydon to inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. She struck her neighbour with a bottle, causing permanent and substantial loss of vision in one eye.

His Honour Judge Dunne imposed 27 months’ immediate imprisonment. The judge treated the offence as Category 1 harm and medium culpability, and took account of the applicant’s guilty plea, health, lack of convictions and responsibilities for two children.

On her appeal against sentence, the applicant challenged the harm categorisation, the treatment of her children’s care arrangements, and the weight given to her physical and mental health. The central issue was whether immediate custody remained appropriate when the mitigation and the arrangements for her dependent children were properly assessed.

Held, allowing the appeal against sentence:

1. The sentencing judge was entitled to proceed on the medical evidence and victim personal statements available. They established permanent and irreversible visual injury with a substantial and long-term effect on daily activities. The classification of Category 1 harm and culpability Category B was therefore correct.

2. The judge had correctly directed himself to the principles in R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214 and recognised the grave impact of imprisonment on the applicant’s children. However, he lacked sufficient information about how they would be cared for and whether the proposed arrangements were suitable. Further investigation, including assessment by Social Services where necessary, should have been undertaken before sentence. The hearing should have been adjourned if that was required.

3. The seriousness of the offence, the need for punishment, the victim’s interests and deterrence remained powerful factors. The gravity of an offence reduces the prospect that the ordinary interference with family life caused by imprisonment will be disproportionate. Those considerations nevertheless had to be balanced against the applicant’s children and all the mitigation.

4. Viewed cumulatively, the applicant’s lack of previous convictions, remorse, health difficulties, delay, absence of further offending, rehabilitation prospects and the position of her children justified a larger reduction than the sentencing judge allowed. The proper sentence before credit for plea was two years’ imprisonment; with credit, it was 21 months. Applying the Imposition Guideline, the exceptional combination of factors meant that the sentence could and should be suspended despite the seriousness of the offending.

5. The court quashed the 27-month sentence and substituted 21 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, with a rehabilitation activity requirement of 20 days.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the immediate custodial term, and substituted a suspended sentence: [2024] EWCA Crim 936.
• Crown Court at Croydon — On 22 May 2024, His Honour Judge Dunne sentenced the applicant to 27 months’ imprisonment following her guilty plea.