R v Nathan Graham

Whether a weapon is highly dangerous for sentencing purposes depends on the facts and circumstances. An unbroken bottle used to strike a victim is ordinarily a medium-culpability factor on its own. High culpability may nevertheless be established by a revenge attack where the offender withdraws, obtains the weapon and returns to cause serious injury. Grave injury with significant effects is not necessarily category 1 harm if it is not shown to be permanent or sufficiently disabling. A sentence based on excessive categorisation may be quashed and replaced on appeal. Credit for qualifying curfew is calculated under the Sentencing Act 2020 by halving the relevant days and rounding up.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Croydon of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and pleaded guilty to possessing a class B controlled drug. He received a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for the wounding offence.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the offence should have been placed in a lower culpability and harm category. He challenged the treatment of an unbroken bottle as a highly dangerous weapon and the assessment of the complainant’s injuries as category 1 harm. The court also considered the calculation of credit for 891 days spent on qualifying curfew.

Appeal allowed in part. The sentence for wounding with intent was quashed and replaced with one of seven years’ imprisonment. The court record was also amended to reflect 446 days’ credit for qualifying curfew.

1. The sentencing guideline requires the court to determine whether a weapon is highly dangerous by considering the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Although a broken bottle would ordinarily present a more obvious danger, the unbroken bottle in this case was not, by itself, properly characterised as a highly dangerous weapon. It was more appropriately a medium-culpability factor.
2. The judge was nevertheless entitled to find high culpability on the separate basis that the attack was an act of revenge. The appellant had left the argument, obtained the bottle, and returned to use it to cause really serious injury. The trial judge had heard the evidence and was best placed to reach that conclusion.
3. The complainant’s injuries were grave and had significant adverse effects on ordinary activities and work. They were not shown to be necessarily permanent or sufficiently disabling to fall within category 1, which concerns the greatest harm. The injuries therefore fell within category 2. The correct category 2A starting point was seven years, with a range of six to ten years.
4. The appellant’s previous convictions significantly aggravated the offence, while the personal mitigation was significant. The court adopted the sentencing judge’s conclusion that those matters balanced each other. Under section 325 of the Sentencing Act 2020, half of the 891 qualifying-curfew days was to be credited, with rounding up for half days. The correct credit was therefore 446 days.

• Crown Court at Croydon: The appellant was convicted of wounding with intent and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment on 30 May 2025.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On appeal against sentence, the court reduced the sentence for wounding with intent to seven years and amended the qualifying-curfew credit. [2026] EWCA Crim 326