The defendant was in a developing relationship with the complainant. On learning that she had spent a night with someone else, the defendant completely lost his self-control, punched the complainant in the face, fracturing her eye socket, dragged her to another room by her hair, pulling out a clump of hair as he did so, and stabbed her several times, aiming towards her head and upper body. She sustained two wounds to the head, two to the shoulder and upper back, and one through the upper neck which penetrated behind her throat and above her voice box. She was treated in hospital for some nine days as an in-patient followed by some four and a half weeks as an out-patient after which she was discharged to the care of her general practitioner. The defendant was convicted of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, but was acquitted of attempted murder. Medical evidence was given by a consultant and by the complainant’s general practitioner. The consultant’s opinion was that the throat perforation, though managed conservatively, was a very severe, potentially life threatening injury indicative of a significant degree of force; the knife would have had to enter a significant distance to enter the pharynx; he added that, if she had not been treated appropriately, or if medical treatment had been delayed, she could have developed a severe infection possibly resulting in her death. The general practitioner concluded that the complainant would suffer lifelong physical and psychological consequences. The judge placed the offence within category 1A of the Guideline applicable to offences of wounding with intent, with a starting point of 12 years and a range of 10–16 years. He determined that the notional determinate sentence would have been 15 years’ imprisonment. He found that the criteria set out in section 283 of the Sentencing Act 2020 were met, was satisfied that it was not unjust to impose a life sentence, and did so, imposing a minimum term of nine years and 34 days (ie 10 years less 331 days for time already served). The defendant appealed against sentence on the grounds that the notional determinate sentence of 15 years was too long, a life sentence should not have been passed, and, if a life sentence was correct, the minimum term was too long.
On the appeal—
Held, appeal dismissed. Based on the guidance in para. C 1.11 of the Overarching Principles: Seriousness Guideline it was open to the judge to conclude that since the attack with a knife to the neck area carried the risk of life threatening injury, and that that was foreseeable, that that should increase the defendant’s culpability and therefore sentence. However, he concluded that, because of section 63 of the 2020 Act, he could regard this as a case “where particularly grave or life threatening injuries [were] caused” within the Guideline applicable to offences of wounding with intent. The medical evidence was that death could have been possible if medical treatment had been delayed and if the complainant had not received appropriate antibiotics. The judge would have been assisted by a further medical report setting out the likelihood of the contingent events occurring. As the report stood, it was difficult, without further information, to reach a conclusion as to whether it was a case where there were “particularly grave or life threatening injuries [were] caused” within the meaning of the Guideline. The judge should have placed the case in category 2. The starting point for category 2 was seven years with a range of 6–10 years. The serious nature of the injuries, coupled with the fact that harm included a very serious fracture of the eye socket, and that the complainant had suffered lasting physical and psychological harm, should have caused the judge to move the starting point to the borderline between Category 1 and 2. In view, however, of the aggravating factors the judge’s assessment of a notional determinate sentence of 15 years was not too long. The life sentence was passed pursuant to sections 283 and 285 of the 2020 Act. The judge was right to conclude that there was nothing in the particular circumstances of the index offence, the previous offence or the defendant that made it unjust to pass a life sentence and the minimum term was not too long (see paras 27–30, 32–35, 49–50, 51–52).
Jonathan Rose (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.