R v Thomas Hoe

In sentencing serious section 18 offences involving a knife, the court must assess both harm caused or intended and harm that might foreseeably have been caused under Sentencing Act 2020. Life-threatening injuries and permanent injury with substantial long-term effects may justify moving to the top of the category 1A range. Personal mitigation based on psychiatric evidence warrants substantial adjustment only where the evidence materially reduces culpability or makes custody significantly harder to bear. Autism traits should be clearly linked to the offending. For multiple offences arising from one incident, totality requires a proportionate overall sentence.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Lewes, the appellant was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of wounding his mother and a friend with intent. He had also pleaded guilty to possessing a bladed article in a public place. The judge imposed an aggregate sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, including a 15-year term for the most serious wounding offence. The appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that the starting point was too high, mitigation was insufficiently recognised, and the totality principle was not adequately applied. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The aggregate sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

2. The use of the knife involved a highly dangerous weapon. The principal wounding offence fell within category 1A, with a starting point of 12 years and a range of 10 to 16 years. The injuries were life-threatening and caused permanent injury with a substantial and long-term effect on the victim’s ability to carry out ordinary activities and work. Those two category 1 harm factors justified moving to the top of the category 1A range. The other wounding offence fell within category 2A.

3. Under section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020, seriousness required consideration of not only the harm caused or intended, but also harm which might foreseeably have been caused. The blows near the victim’s neck carried a serious risk of death. The circumstances also included a knife blow to the appellant’s mother’s face near an eye.

4. The psychiatric report did not justify a substantial reduction. No mental or personality disorder had been diagnosed which significantly reduced culpability or made imprisonment materially harder to bear. The reference to autism traits was not clearly linked to the extremely violent attacks: R v Jacobs [2024] EWCA Crim 1503; [2024] 4 WLR 8. The judge’s assessment of the appellant’s emotional maturity, based on observations during the trial, was also a relevant consideration in light of R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185; [2018] 1 Cr App R(S) 52.

5. The judge had adequately allowed for previous good character, remorse, the appellant’s summoning of assistance, emotional maturity and totality. Multiple offences arising from one incident required a proportionate overall sentence, but that principle did not make the sentence excessive in this case.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 16 April 2026, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 554.

2. Crown Court at Lewes — The appellant was convicted of wounding with intent and, on a guilty plea, possessing a bladed article in a public place. On 25 September 2025, HHJ Martin Huseyin sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment, with concurrent terms for the other offences.