R v Steven Corner

On a sentence appeal, the Court of Appeal will not interfere where the sentencing judge applied the relevant guideline, made findings open on the evidence, balanced aggravating and mitigating factors, and imposed a sentence within the available range. Serious harm may be established by multiple knife injuries and profound psychological consequences even where the injuries were not ultimately life-threatening. Mental-health difficulties may constitute limited mitigation without reducing culpability where that conclusion is supported by the evidence, including evidence that voluntary intoxication exacerbated the difficulties. The appellate court must respect the sentencing judge’s evaluation of competing expert evidence unless a proper basis for intervention is shown.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne to attempted murder and possession of an article with a blade or point. He received concurrent sentences of 20 years’ imprisonment and 12 months’ imprisonment respectively. He renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The grounds challenged the weight given to cumulative mitigation, the assessment of mental-health difficulties and culpability, the reduction made for carrying the knife only a short distance, and the classification of harm as category 2 under the attempted murder guideline. The central issue was whether the sentence involved an arguable error or was excessive.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. Mental health and expert evidence. The sentencing judge was entitled to prefer the prosecution psychiatrist’s evidence, which was measured, focused and impartial, over the defence report, which the court found prolix, unfocused and lacking impartiality. On the evidence, the judge was entitled to conclude that the applicant’s mental-health difficulties did not reduce culpability and provided only limited mitigation. The difficulties had been exacerbated by the applicant’s voluntary consumption of alcohol.
2. Assessment of harm. The submission that the victim had not suffered serious physical or mental harm was without merit. The victim had sustained at least seven knife injuries, requiring further surgery, and had suffered profound psychological effects. It was not arguable that the judge had wrongly assessed the offence as involving category 2 harm. The offence therefore fell within culpability category B and harm category 2, producing a 25-year starting point and a range of 20 to 30 years.
3. Sentence and appellate review. The judge had reduced the notional sentence to reflect the relatively short distance over which the knife had been carried. He had also taken into account the aggravating and mitigating factors, including domestic abuse, voluntary intoxication, interference with the victim’s attempt to obtain help, persistence in the attack, good character, remorse and limited mental-health mitigation. Credit of a little over 13 per cent for the guilty plea was arguably generous. The sentence imposed was clearly within the range open to the judge; after trial it would have been 23 years, below the guideline starting point. There was accordingly no proper basis for appellate interference. The concurrent sentence for the bladed article offence was not challenged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1647, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: The applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 6 December 2024 to 20 years’ imprisonment for attempted murder and 12 months’ imprisonment concurrently for possession of an article with a blade or point.