R v Nicholas Green

Category 1 harm under the sentencing guideline requires a particularly grave or life-threatening injury actually caused. A mere risk that an injury might become life-threatening is insufficient. But under section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the court must consider harm caused, intended, or foreseeably caused. Those matters may together justify category 1, even where the actual injuries were not themselves life-threatening.

Medical evidence that injuries actually suffered could cause death without immediate intervention is sufficient; a later physical recovery does not alter that assessment. On a section 36 reference under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Court of Appeal intervenes only where a sentence is unduly lenient, not merely lenient, and must then reassess the starting point and totality.

Following a jury trial at the Crown Court at Inner London, the offender was convicted of two counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, possessing a bladed article in a public place under section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and assault by beating under section 39 of that Act. He was acquitted of alternative attempted murder and sexual assault counts.

On 4 December 2025, the Crown Court imposed concurrent extended determinate sentences of 16 years on the two wounding counts, comprising 11 years’ custody and a five-year extended licence, together with a concurrent three-month sentence for assault. The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentences under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The reference concerned whether the harm from the wounding offences was category 1 rather than category 2, and whether the total sentence was unduly lenient.

Reference allowed. The court granted leave and held that the original custodial term of 11 years was unduly lenient. The five-year extended licence and the sentence for assault were left undisturbed.

1. Section 36 threshold. A reference is concerned with gross error, substantial departure from sentencing norms and public confidence. Following Attorney General’s Reference No 132 of 2001 (R v Johnson) [2002] EWCA Crim 1418 and R v Mohammed Arfan [2022] EWCA Crim 1416, leniency alone was insufficient; the sentence had to be unduly lenient.
2. Mr Thomas. Category 1 required consideration of the injuries actually caused. The guidance in R v O’Bryan [2021] EWCA Crim 1472, R v Dixon [2023] EWCA Crim 280 and R v Kelly [2024] EWCA Crim 1177 did not require proof of a contingent event. Mr Thomas’s haemopneumothorax, pneumothorax and multiple stab wounds could have caused death without immediate treatment. His later physical recovery did not alter the conclusion that the injuries were life-threatening. The harm was category 1.
3. Mr Patel. The actual injuries were extremely serious but, on the medical evidence, were not themselves life-threatening. However, section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and the current guideline required consideration of actual harm alongside the risk of greater harm and intended and foreseeable harm. The earlier approach in R v Dixon and R v Kelly, which placed foreseeable risk in culpability, was based on a guideline provision no longer in force. The acquittal on attempted murder did not prevent category 1 harm being found.
4. Resentencing. Both wounding offences fell within category 1A, with a starting point of 12 years and a range of 10 to 16 years for one offence. The fact of the reference provided no additional mitigation; this was not one of the rare cases identified in R v X, Y and Z [2026] EWCA Crim 845. Taking account of aggravating and mitigating factors and totality, the minimum appropriate custodial term was 18 years. The sentences on counts 2 and 4 were quashed and concurrent extended sentences of 23 years, comprising 18 years’ custody and a five-year extended licence, were imposed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, found the custodial sentence unduly lenient, quashed the sentences on counts 2 and 4, and substituted concurrent extended sentences of 23 years. [2026] EWCA Crim 1003
2. Crown Court at Inner London — Following conviction after trial, the court imposed concurrent extended determinate sentences of 16 years on the two wounding counts, comprising 11 years’ custody and a five-year extended licence, together with a concurrent three-month sentence for assault.