R v Levi Wilson

An appellate court will not interfere with a sentencing decision where the trial judge was best placed to assess culpability, harm, temperament and attitude, and there was ample material for the conclusions reached. An extended sentence may be imposed where there is a risk of serious harm from further specified offending and the extended licence is necessary for public protection. The extension period must remain proportionate, having regard to previous offending, compliance history and the need to monitor risk on release. A custodial term reflecting the overall criminality of multiple offences will be upheld where the sentencing judge was entitled to impose it.

Following a jury trial at Kingston Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of criminal damage, threatening with an offensive weapon, wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of that Act. He had also pleaded guilty to disclosing a sexual photograph or film without consent under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

On 11 April 2024, the judge imposed an extended determinate sentence comprising eight years’ custody and a four-year extension period, with concurrent sentences for the other offences and a ten-year restraining order. The appellant renewed his application for leave to appeal, challenging the custodial term and the extended sentence.

The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. It considered both the eight-year custodial term and the four-year extension period.

1. Dangerousness and extended sentence. The trial judge had heard all the evidence and was best placed to assess the appellant’s culpability, harm, temperament and attitude. There was ample material to establish a risk of serious harm to the public from further specified offences. The relevant material included the violent attack with a knife, the assault on the appellant’s former partner, the previous section 20 offence involving a broken jaw, and the pattern of offending against her. The court upheld the conclusion that an extended sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 was necessary for public protection.
2. Extension period. A four-year extension period was proportionate. The appellant’s previous offending and failure to comply with suspended sentences justified a period sufficient to monitor and mitigate the risk of further offending after release. The nature of the relationship with his former partner and the prospect of further trouble also required careful observation.
3. Custodial term. The sentencing judge was entitled to assess the section 18 offence as involving high culpability, because of the dangerous weapon and significant planning, with category 3 harm because the injuries were less serious than they might have been. The section 47 assault also involved high culpability and category 2 harm. The eight-year term properly reflected the overall criminality of the offences, and was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2025] EWCA Crim 1286 — renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
• Kingston Crown Court: On 11 April 2024, the appellant was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence comprising eight years’ custody and a four-year extension period, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.