[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Wiliamson, R v [2009] EWCA Crim 1245 (5 May 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/1245.html Cite as: [2009] EWCA Crim 1245, [2010] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 16, [2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 16

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		Tuesday, 5th May 2009

1. LORD JUSTICE MOSES: This is an appeal against a heavy sentence passed for an offence contrary merely to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It raises the question as to the extent to which it was open to the trial judge to exceed the relevant guidelines.
2. The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to causing an offence of grievous bodily harm against a lady with whom he was in a relationship. On 23rd December 2008 he was sentenced at Bristol Crown Court to 4 years' imprisonment, with time in custody reducing that sentence. He was, as we have said, charged with and admitted only an offence under section 20. When the facts to which we now turn are considered it will be readily appreciated that he was very fortunate not to be charged with an offence contrary to section 18; it is difficult to see he would have had any defence having regard to the sustained violence of which he was guilty.
3. On 10th December 2008, in the evening, the appellant was in the complainant's flat when he received some text messages on his mobile telephone. She came out and the appellant punched her to the face. She fell to the floor. He grabbed her hair and punched her twice more. He kicked her to the face and said: "You're lucky I like you otherwise I would fucking kill you. You don't know what you've done." There apparently had been some cause for his anger in communications she was having with his ex-partner. She managed to get to the bathroom, started to wash blood from her face but whilst she was in the bathroom the appellant attacked her again, punching her to the face, so that she fell into the bath. He continued to punch her as she lay in the bath. The police came and she managed to escape, saying: "Please help, he's trying to kill he." She was covered in blood. At hospital she was treated for a broken nose, loose teeth and a fractured cheekbone from which she still suffers.
4. The appellant has an appalling record of offences which include violence such as assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, affray, racially threatening behaviour, wounding with intent and other offences. He is, as the pre-sentence report described, an identifiable risk and source of harm to women, both in the past and in any future relationship he might have. But, as we have emphasised, he did only admit a section 20 offence. In those circumstances, it was incumbent upon the judge to have regard to the Sentencing Guideline Council's Definitive Guideline of assault and other offences against the person and explain why he was not following that guideline. The guideline shows that on a plea of not guilty, the bracket for sentencing, where particularly grave injury has resulted, is between 12 months and 3 years with a starting point of 18 months custody. In passing a sentence of 4 years, following credit for a guilty plea, it is plain both that the judge started at the maximum sentence, those reserved for particularly grave injuries, resulting from premeditated assault where a weapon has been used. He also purported to give credit for the plea of guilty which was at the earliest possible opportunity. In those circumstances he had clearly passed the maximum sentence. He gave no reasons for departing from the guideline, still less did he give any reasons as to why he did not give full credit for the plea of guilty, particularly notable since in cases of this kind there is often a reluctance to admit responsibility for injuring a partner.
5. In those circumstances, in our judgment, the sentence of 4 years was wrong in principle as well as manifestly excessive. However, this was a very grave offence. It would be quite wrong for this court to pass a sentence to reflect the fact that the prosecution did not sufficiently charge this appellant. That would be to cause a further injustice. But nevertheless, on a contested trial, this offence, given the aggravation of the sustained circumstances in which it was given, the consequences of the offence and the previous convictions for violence of this appellant, the appropriate sentence would not have been the maximum but near the maximum. We take the view, on a contested case, the correct sentence would have been one of four-and-a-half years. Giving full credit for the plea of guilty the appropriate sentence should therefore be one of 3 years' imprisonment. In those circumstances we shall allow the appeal, quash the sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, order that he serve a sentence of 3 years' imprisonment with the 10 days already spent in custody counting towards that sentence. To that extent this appeal, well argued as it was by Miss Phillips for the appellant, is allowed.