R v Paul Hope

A sentence for an attempted offence should ordinarily reflect that it was not completed. A separate reduction is not required, however, where the sentencing judge has already reflected the absence of the gravest harm through the harm-category assessment and the offender did not voluntarily desist.

Serious aggravating features, including persistent violence, breaches of protective court orders, relevant previous convictions and offending while on licence, may justify a substantial uplift from the guideline starting point. Limited personal mitigation does not require a reduction where those aggravating features substantially outweigh it.

The appellant appealed an extended sentence of 11 years and 2 months, comprising a custodial term of 7 years and 2 months and a four-year extended licence period. It was imposed at Preston Crown Court for attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and, concurrently, breach of a restraining order.

He had subjected his mother to a sustained assault involving a knife, strangulation, loss of consciousness and threats to kill. He contended that the judge should have reduced the sentence for attempt, had increased the guideline starting point excessively, and had failed to recognise mitigation arising from his childhood. The central issue was whether the custodial term was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal was dismissed on grounds 1 and 3. Permission to appeal was refused on ground 2.

2. The court accepted the general principle that an attempted offence normally attracts a lower sentence than its completed equivalent. On these facts, however, the judge had already accounted for the attempt by assessing the harm at category 3 rather than at the category 2 level which the intended harm could have warranted. The appellant had not voluntarily desisted. The prosecution case was that he stopped after the complainant became unconscious. A completed-offence assessment at category 3 could itself have been justified by the asphyxiation, loss of consciousness and subsequent use of cocktail sticks.

3. The substantial uplift from the guideline starting point was justified. The aggravating features included previous violence towards the complainant, repeated breaches of the restraining order, and offending while on licence shortly after release from custody. The breach of the restraining order was complete on entry to the complainant’s home and could itself have attracted a consecutive sentence. Repeated strangulation further demonstrated the seriousness of the offending.

4. The appellant’s difficult childhood could have been treated as mitigation, but it could not affect the outcome. The aggravating features significantly outweighed it.

5. The court also directed correction of the conviction record. Although the breach count had been recorded under repealed section 5(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the transitional provision in the Sentencing Act 2020 required that reference to be read as one to section 363(1). Applying R v Jowett [2022] EWCA Crim 629, the error did not invalidate the conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 855, dismissed the appeal against the custodial term on grounds 1 and 3, and refused permission on ground 2. It directed correction of the record to show conviction under section 363(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020.

• Crown Court at Preston: HHJ Heather Lloyd imposed an extended sentence of 11 years and 2 months for attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, with a concurrent 22-month sentence for breach of a restraining order.