R v Ioan Budea

Distinct offences committed in the same incident may properly attract consecutive sentences where separate aggravating features require recognition. The totality principle then requires adjustment of the aggregate sentence. An extended sentence is justified where the evidence establishes a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences and public protection requires an extended licence period. Leave to appeal against sentence should be refused where the proposed challenge discloses no arguable error of principle and the sentence is neither manifestly excessive nor otherwise wrong.

The applicant was sentenced at the Crown Court at Northampton after being convicted by a jury of attempted murder and pleading guilty to wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and possessing a bladed article in a public place. The total custodial term was 20 years, comprising consecutive extended determinate sentences for attempted murder and wounding, with a concurrent sentence for the bladed article offence.

His grounds challenging sentence were lodged 251 days late. A single judge refused leave. On renewal, the applicant argued that the custodial term was excessive and that an extended licence period was unjustified. The issues were whether time should be extended and whether the proposed appeal disclosed an arguable error in offence categorisation, consecutive sentencing, totality or the dangerousness assessment.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and the application for an extension of time were refused.

1. The applicant had shown no good reason for the 251-day delay. Nevertheless, the court considered the merits before deciding whether the proposed appeal had any arguable basis.
2. The sentencing judge had correctly categorised the attempted murder under the relevant guideline as a high-culpability, category 3 harm offence. The judge had also correctly categorised the wounding with intent under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, having regard to the use of a knife, the level of harm and the applicant's intention to cause much more serious injury.
3. Consecutive sentences were correct in principle. The offences were distinct, although committed in the same incident, and the attack on the intervening member of the public involved an aggravating element requiring separate recognition. The judge properly applied totality by substantially reducing the aggregate custodial term.
4. The statutory dangerousness threshold was met. The pre-sentence report assessed a high risk of serious harm, and the evidence included the premeditated use of a knife against an unarmed woman, a further knife attack on an intervening member of the public, the applicant's attempt to kill himself, and relevant evidence concerning alcohol use, anxiety and depression. The judge was entitled to conclude that there was a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences and that extended sentences were required for public protection.
5. None of the sentencing judge's assessments or conclusions was arguably wrong. The sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the application for an extension of time and the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Northampton: on 15 September 2023, sentenced the applicant to a total custodial term of 20 years, with a three-year extended licence period.
• Single judge: refused leave to appeal against sentence.