R v Carl Cullen

A sentencing judge may properly treat a prolonged domestic assault involving repeated punches and kicks, life-threatening internal and brain injuries, and enduring harm as a category 1A assault under the relevant sentencing guideline. A 12-year starting point was appropriate on those facts, and aggravating features could outweigh limited personal mitigation.

A pre-sentence report need not be obtained where it would serve no useful purpose. That conclusion may be justified where substantial custody is inevitable, the offender is familiar with the court process, and the court has relevant psychiatric evidence.

The applicant was convicted at Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and criminal damage after a prolonged attack upon his partner. She sustained life-threatening injuries, including a perforated bowel, liver lacerations, brain bleeding and hypoxic brain injury.

On 1 May 2024, the Recorder imposed 12 years’ imprisonment for the assault, with no separate penalty for criminal damage, and made a surcharge order and indefinite restraining orders. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence after the single judge refused permission.

He contended that the sentencing guideline had been wrongly applied, that mitigation had not been advanced, and that the Recorder should have obtained a pre-sentence report.

1. Renewed application refused. There was no merit in any proposed ground of appeal against the 12-year sentence.

2. The Recorder had applied the relevant sentencing guideline correctly. The applicant repeatedly punched and kicked a helpless partner over a prolonged period. The violence caused life-threatening internal injuries and brain injury, and left lasting physical and psychological consequences. It was properly classified as a category 1A assault, for which the starting point was 12 years’ imprisonment.

3. The Recorder was entitled to identify substantial aggravation. The applicant had previous convictions for violence and committed the offence while on bail awaiting trial for another assault. The Recorder also took account of the abuse of power within the domestic relationship. His difficult history, sobriety, remorse, faith and proposed study did not amount to weighty mitigation and were outweighed by the aggravating features.

4. The Recorder considered dangerousness but was entitled to impose a standard determinate sentence rather than a life or extended sentence. He ensured that the term was fair and proportionate in light of its consecutive operation with an existing sentence.

5. The complaint concerning mitigation was unfounded. Counsel had realistically advanced the available mitigation. Nor was a pre-sentence report necessary: the applicant had recently received a custodial sentence, psychiatric evidence was available, and a substantial custodial term was inevitable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused in [2025] EWCA Crim 412.
• Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street: following conviction by a jury on 6 February 2024 for causing grievous bodily harm with intent and criminal damage, the Recorder imposed 12 years’ imprisonment for the assault on 1 May 2024.