R v Stevan Newton

Where no specific sentencing guideline exists for corrosive-fluid offending, the court may use general sentencing principles and a definitive guideline for an analogous offence. The analogy must be applied carefully, with adjustments for differences in the statutory maximum and offence elements. It is not a merely arithmetical exercise. In assessing harm, the court may consider actual harm, intended harm and harm which the offence might foreseeably have caused, while avoiding double counting an intention already required by the analogous offence. The substantial risk created by deploying a corrosive substance in a public place, including risk to multiple people, is a significant seriousness factor. Relatively mild injuries do not necessarily require a lower sentencing assessment.

Following guilty pleas, the applicant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne for applying a corrosive fluid with intent, contrary to section 29 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He received an extended sentence of seven years, comprising 54 months’ custody and a 30-month extended licence period, with concurrent one-month sentences for drug offences.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his non-counsel application against sentence. He argued that the injuries were actual rather than grievous bodily harm, that the harm category had been overstated, and that the sentence was excessive or wrong in principle. The central issue was whether the sentencing guideline for section 18 grievous bodily harm with intent was an appropriate analogy and whether category 3 harm was properly selected.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence was not wrong in principle or in law and was not manifestly excessive.

1. There was no specific sentencing guideline for applying or throwing corrosive fluid with intent under section 29 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The court should therefore consider the statutory maximum and any minimum sentence, relevant sentencing judgments, and definitive guidelines for analogous offences. Any analogy must be used carefully, with adjustments for differences in statutory maximum and offence elements. The exercise is not merely arithmetical, and the stepped approach of the guidelines should be followed where possible.
2. The section 18 grievous bodily harm guideline was a suitable reference. The maximum sentence under section 29 was life imprisonment, as under section 18: see R v Ardic [2019] EWCA Crim 1836, at [53]. The lower maximum for section 47 provided a contrast. High culpability was accepted because the corrosive substance was equivalent to a highly dangerous weapon.
3. Harm for sentencing purposes extends beyond actual harm to harm intended or which the offence might foreseeably have caused. However, intended harm must not be double counted where intention to cause harm is already an essential element of the analogous offence. That caution did not prevent consideration of the likelihood and extent of potential harm in a section 29 offence, for which actual injury is not necessary.
4. The court adopted the observation in Attorney General’s Reference (R v Rouf) [2022] EWCA Crim 63, at [37], that corrosive substances create a distinctive and obvious risk of irreversible and grave injury. The risk of serious harm to several people from using such a substance in a public place was a very significant seriousness factor, although the actual injury remained relevant.
5. The victim’s lack of a personal statement did not demonstrate an absence of harm. There was material harm to the principal victim, direct exposure of other victims, and very high foreseeable potential harm to people in the pub. Category 3 was therefore a reasonable reference. A four-and-a-half-year custodial term after guilty plea credit, within the applicable four-to-seven-year range, was not excessive. The finding of dangerousness and imposition of an extended sentence were justified by the undisputed risk to the public.

1. Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: On 16 April 2025, following guilty pleas, the applicant was sentenced to an extended sentence of seven years for the corrosive-fluid offence, together with concurrent sentences for drug offences.
2. Single judge: Leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
3. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused in [2026] EWCA Crim 519.