R v David Moore

On a sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal should not interfere where the sentencing judge has properly applied the relevant guideline, weighed aggravating and mitigating features, and imposed a sentence reasonably open on the facts. A serious, unprovoked section 20 assault causing grave injury may properly fall within category 2B even where it involved a single blow and immediate assistance. Remorse, personal mitigation, treatment requirements and a guilty plea do not compel suspension. Whether punishment can be achieved without immediate custody is a discretionary assessment for the sentencing judge. Earlier adjournments to obtain further information do not create an expectation of a suspended sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. On 15 November 2024, the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne sentenced him to 21 months’ imprisonment. The offence involved one unprovoked blow to an older man, who fell and suffered serious head injuries. The sentencing judge proceeded on the basis that the victim had recovered and bore the appellant no ill-will, although requested further information had not been obtained.

The appellant appealed against sentence, challenging the starting point, the treatment of mitigation and the refusal to suspend the sentence.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. The appellant could not rely on the earlier adjournments as creating an expectation that a suspended sentence would be imposed. No promise had been made. The sentencing judge was required to make an independent assessment on the information available at the adjourned hearing and by reference to the relevant sentencing guidelines. The appellant would not have gained an advantage from a further adjournment because the judge had proceeded on the most favourable basis reasonably available concerning the victim’s recovery and attitude (paras [19]–[21]).
2. The judge was entitled to categorise the offence as category 2B under the relevant guideline. The applicable starting point was two years’ custody, with a range of one to three years. Relevant considerations included the unprovoked attack in a public street, the victim’s visible unsteadiness, the obvious risk of a fall, the grave injuries, the appellant’s relevant previous convictions and the fact that he was intoxicated. The single blow, short duration of the incident, assistance given afterwards, guilty plea, remorse and personal mitigation did not make the resulting sentence excessive. The balancing exercise was reasonably open to the judge (paras [21]–[23]).
3. The decision whether appropriate punishment could be achieved without immediate custody was a matter for the sentencing judge’s discretion. Having considered the guideline on the imposition of custodial sentences, the judge explained why suspension would not provide appropriate punishment. That conclusion was reasonably open to him and disclosed no sentencing error (para [24]).
4. The sentence of 21 months’ immediate imprisonment therefore stood. The appeal was dismissed (para [25]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The court dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 119.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne — On 15 November 2024, the appellant was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.