R v Daniel Mihaai Popescu

In sentencing for attempted murder, physical harm and psychological impact must be assessed distinctly. Physical injuries that are not of the most serious type may fall in category 3, while serious psychological harm can support a higher harm assessment.

Where a planned knife attack involves the extreme nature of high-culpability factors, the sentencing guideline permits a sentence above the ordinary range and an extended sentence. A lower physical-harm category does not make the sentence manifestly excessive where limited injury was fortuitous and aggravating features justify a substantial uplift.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Merthyr Tydfil to attempted murder and stalking, contrary to sections 2A(1) and 2A(4) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He received an extended determinate sentence of 20 years and 4 months for attempted murder, comprising 17 years and 4 months’ custody and a 3-year extended licence period. No separate sentence was imposed for stalking.

On appeal by leave, the appellant argued that the attempted murder should have been placed in category B3 rather than B2 because the physical injuries were not of the most serious type and the evidence did not establish serious psychological harm. The central issue was whether the corrected harm categorisation made the sentence manifestly excessive, having regard to the planned and repeated knife attack, the aggravating features and the need for public protection.

Appeal dismissed. The extended determinate sentence imposed under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 was upheld as not manifestly excessive.

1. The correct categorisation of the physical harm was category 3 rather than category 2 because the injuries were not of the most serious type. That did not resolve the psychological assessment. The court rejected the submission that the victim’s psychological impact was merely the inevitable consequence of an attempted murder. The victim personal statement supported a finding of serious physical or psychological harm, although not category 1 harm.
2. The limited physical injuries were fortuitous. CCTV showed that the appellant lay in wait, repeatedly and deliberately stabbed the victim, and stopped only when a passer-by intervened. The court was entitled to take account of the lethal intention and the seriousness of the violence despite the comparatively limited injuries.
3. The sentencing guideline permits a sentence above the offence range, or an extended or life sentence, where the offence involves the extreme nature of one or more very high or high culpability factors. Both high-culpability factors identified by the judge were present: the appellant took a knife to the scene intending to kill, and the offending involved premeditation and considerable planning.
4. The breach of bail, domestic context, the victim’s pregnancy and the risk to the unborn child were aggravating features. Even if the offence were categorised as B3, those features would have uplifted the starting point towards the top of the range. The extreme culpability justified a starting point of 26 years and the extended sentence. The sentence was therefore not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court held that the physical harm was category 3, but that the sentence remained not manifestly excessive: [2025] EWCA Crim 567.
• Crown Court at Merthyr Tydfil — Following guilty pleas, the appellant was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 20 years and 4 months for attempted murder. No separate penalty was imposed for stalking.