R v Stephen Blackmore

On a sentence appeal, where no error in principle is established, the issue is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive. Using a glass as a weapon supports culpability category B for wounding with intent. A single blow does not reduce culpability where sufficient force causes substantial injury. Harm must be assessed carefully where guideline categories 2B and 3B overlap. Previous convictions and intoxication may justify an uplift. A guilty plea carries little mitigation where the offender contests the material facts and alleges that the victim was the aggressor. A sentence is not manifestly excessive where it is just and proportionate to the injury, psychological impact and aggravating features.

Following a jury conviction at the Crown Court at Liverpool for wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the appellant was sentenced by the Recorder to 81 months’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence with permission.

He argued that the starting point was too high, that excessive weight was given to previous convictions and intoxication, and that the harm had been placed in the wrong guideline category. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence.

1. Appellate approach. There was no suggestion that the sentence was wrong in principle. The question was whether the term imposed was manifestly excessive.
2. Culpability. The Recorder was right to place the offence in category B because the appellant used the glass as a weapon. The fact that there had been only one blow did not reduce culpability: it was delivered with sufficient force to smash the glass and cause considerable injury. The appellant’s plea to unlawful wounding afforded little, if any, mitigation because he had contested the trial and alleged that the victim had started the violence and lied.
3. Harm. The impact statement demonstrated harm greater than that ordinarily catered for in category 3. The overlap between categories 2B and 3B made the Recorder’s reference to both categories potentially confusing. Reading his sentencing remarks as a whole, however, he had not intended to adopt a four-year starting point under category 2B. The appropriate assessment was the upper end of category 3B harm, producing a notional sentence of six years.
4. Aggravation and mitigation. The appellant’s previous convictions for violence and public disorder, his intoxication during the offence, and the very limited mitigation justified a nine-month uplift. The resulting sentence of six years and nine months was just and proportionate and was not manifestly excessive.

1. Crown Court at Liverpool: The appellant was convicted on 21 September 2023 and sentenced on 27 October 2023 to 81 months’ imprisonment.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2024] EWCA Crim 993: The appeal against sentence, brought by leave of the single judge, was dismissed.