![]() |
[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 >> Williamson, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 259 (07 February 2019) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/259.html Cite as: [2019] EWCA Crim 259 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
REFERENCE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER
S.36 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE O'FARRELL DBE
HIS HONOUR JUDGE WALL QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
v | ||
DARREN CARL WILLIAMSON |
____________________
Epiq Europe Ltd 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr L Marklew appeared on behalf of the Offender
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"The defendant was not intent upon violence when he went to the property. He did not attend there with a weapon and never went inside. Ramshaw reacted by producing a bat, when confronted about the issue of whether he had stolen the defendant's cannabis and that was the catalyst for the violence. The defendant admits repeatedly punching him and manhandling him, whilst lawfully defending himself, but his actions became unlawful when Ramshaw dropped the weapon. Thereafter the defendant admits striking him twice, with the requisite intent, angry at the behaviour that had been shown to him."
"... I take the view that the true appropriate sentence after trial would have been one of six years' imprisonment, which is the starting point for category 2. I cannot, in all conscience, go any lower than that. That would be an insult to Mr Ramshaw, who has, as I have said, suffered and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life from the consequences of your evening of madness.
Giving you 25 per cent credit, … the sentence in your case will be one of four years' imprisonment."
We readily accept that viewing those matters of mitigation collectively, they are weighty and necessitated a significant reduction from the provisional sentence reached by taking the guideline starting point and considering the aggravating features. But with all respect to the judge, we cannot agree that those mitigating features justified an initial reduction to the very bottom end of the category 1 range and then a further reduction, by reference to the three "exceptional circumstances" to a sentence, after trial, of 5 years 4 months. Sympathy for Mr Williamson's very difficult situation following the death of his wife has to be set in the context of the seriousness of the offending and the harm caused. Shortly put, a sentence which started at 12 years before taking into account the undoubted aggravating features has, in the result, come down as a result of the mitigating features to a sentence after trial of 5 years 4 months. Such a very substantial reduction cannot, in our view, be justified by the mitigation and fell outside the range properly open to the sentencing judge. Making every possible allowance in Mr Williamson's favour, we cannot, in the circumstances of this case, see that the sentence on his own basis of plea could properly have been less than 9 years' imprisonment after trial.
For those reasons we conclude that this sentence was unduly lenient. We are acutely conscious of the ongoing consequences for Mr Williamson's children of his sentence being increased and we have considered anxiously whether we can properly exercise our discretion not to order an increase in the sentence. We are however satisfied that we must increase the sentence. Emphasising yet again that we approach the case on the basis of Mr Williamson's plea, this was nonetheless a serious offence and the sentence imposed below does not amount to just and proportionate punishment in all the circumstances.
For those reasons, we grant Her Majesty's Attorney General leave to refer, and we quash the sentence imposed below. Giving the appropriate credit for the guilty plea, we substitute a sentence of 6 years 9 months' imprisonment.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Email: [email protected]