R v Anthony Mark Brown

When reviewing a sentence for manifest excess, the Court of Appeal will not interfere where the sentencing judge was entitled to place the offence within the relevant guideline category, gave proper weight to serious aggravating features, considered mitigation, and applied an appropriate guilty-plea reduction. A plea entered on the first day of trial does not ordinarily attract enhanced credit merely because the offence to which the defendant pleaded was added to the indictment that day. A separate arithmetical error in calculating a driving disqualification may be corrected on appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Manchester Crown Court to possessing a bladed article, driving while disqualified and unlawful wounding. He received concurrent sentences, including an extended five-year sentence for the wounding and a 57-month driving disqualification.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence on grounds concerning harm categorisation, aggravating and mitigating factors, and credit for his plea. He also appealed the driving disqualification. The central issues were whether the custodial sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the disqualification had been correctly calculated.

1. Sentence. The application for leave to appeal against the extended sentence was refused. The court adopted the reasoning of the Single Judge and held that the sentencing judge was entitled to place the wounding at the top of category 3 harm, in light of the psychological harm, permanent scarring and a wound passing through deep tissue. The category A culpability assessment was not challenged.
2. The aggravating features, particularly the appellant’s commission of the offences while on licence shortly after release and his relevant previous convictions, justified the substantial upward adjustment. The pre-sentence report supported the finding that he posed a high risk of significant harm. The absence of an express reference to a completed course did not show that mitigation had been ignored.
3. A 10 per cent reduction for the guilty plea was not arguably wrong. The plea was entered on the first day of trial after the appellant had previously denied involvement. The fact that the section 20 offence had been added to the indictment that day did not make a greater reduction appropriate.
4. Disqualification. The appeal was allowed to the limited extent that the 57-month disqualification was quashed. The sentencing judge intended a further 12-month disqualification after release. Since two-thirds of the 48-month custodial term amounted to 32 months, the correct total was 44 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The application for leave to appeal against the extended sentence was refused. The appeal against the driving disqualification was allowed to the limited extent of substituting 44 months for 57 months.
• Manchester Crown Court: The appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced by HHJ Mark Savill on 29 January 2025 to concurrent sentences, including an extended sentence of five years for unlawful wounding and a 57-month driving disqualification.