[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Gomez, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 342 (06 March 2025) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/342.html Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 342

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT GUILDFORD
MS RECORDER LEVENE 45RB0672424

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		6 March 2025

LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS:

Introduction

1. This is a hearing of an application for leave to refer a sentence which His Majesty's Solicitor General considers to be unduly lenient. The respondent, Tyrell Gomez (who has also been known as "Tyrell Geeworth") pleaded guilty on 11 October 2024, to offences of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and acting in breach of a restraining order, contrary to section 5(5) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. On 12 December 2024, Mr Gomez was sentenced in the Crown Court at Chichester to 4 years' imprisonment on the wounding with intent and a concurrent sentence of 3 months in respect of the breach of the restraining order.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the Solicitor General that the overall sentence did not reflect the offences committed. A sentence of at least 8 years before discounts for mitigation and plea was appropriate. The judge was wrong to conclude that the mitigation included  any mental health condition. The judge was wrong to give a full third discount for plea and the judge should have obtained a pre-sentence report to assess dangerousness or one should now be obtained. Those submissions were modified before us by Mr Hearn, who accepted that the mitigation for mental health condition might be a mitigating factor but it was not linked to the commission of the offence, so it did not reduce any culpability.
3. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Gomez that the judge's sentence was not unduly lenient. The judge was entitled to take account of information, showing that Mr Gomez was on medication. The sentencing judge was right to give a third discount for plea and the judge was right to find that Mr Gomez was not dangerous. We are very grateful to Mr Hearn and Mr Fullerton for their helpful submissions, and we grant leave.

The Facts

4. Mr Gomez (who is now aged 26 years) has 14 convictions for 22 offences. These include convictions for offences involving violence and, in 2016, Mr Gomez received a sentence of 5 years' detention in a young offender institution for an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and, in 2022, he received a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment for an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm and a restraining order was imposed.
5. The background is that Mr Gomez and the victim began a relationship in September 2023. The relationship lasted for approximately 1 month and was then ended. On 22 April 2024, in the Crown Court at Croydon, Mr Gomez was tried for allegations of domestic violence made by the victim but the victim did not attend the trial and Mr Gomez was acquitted. Mr Gomez had been held on remand awaiting trial and was released and a restraining order was issued by the court prohibiting Mr Gomez from contacting the victim.
6. On 12 May 2024, just under a month later, the victim visited Mr Gomez at the address of Mr Gomez mother and stepfather. That was in breach of the restraining order. Mr Gomez and the victim were alone in the house in an upstairs bedroom, his mother and stepfather were in the garden, and we have seen CCTV footage of various arrivals and departures at the property. Mr Gomez started to look through the victim's phone. He became angry when he saw male social media followers of her social media accounts. He grabbed her by the hair and hit her in the left eye. The victim thought that her eyeball had burst. He further assaulted her by strangling first, with one hand then with two and while doing so, he shouted about whether she had had sex with anyone else while he was in jail. He threatened to kill her if she lied in her response.
7. Mr Gomez then told the victim he was going to get a knife and he retrieved a knife from the kitchen. He returned to the bedroom and told her that he was going to stab her in the genitals. The assault continued. Mr Gomez hit the victim on the back of her head and her body. At that point she was lying face down and he again strangled her by pushing his thumb into the side of her neck. He then stopped and sat on the sofa. The victim said she needed water and, after about 15 minutes, he allowed her to go downstairs to get some water but he continued to look through her phone and when she returned upstairs he punched her in the mouth. He picked up the kitchen knife and swung it twice at her without making contact. He swung the knife for a third time causing a 3-centimetre stab wound to the front of the right thigh.
8. At that point, Mr Gomez's demeanour completely changed and he started to panic. He told her that she would need to drive herself to hospital, he then made her put on a balaclava to conceal her facial injuries and we have seen that on the CCTV footage as well. When they were in the victim's vehicle, Mr Gomez threatened further violence if she tried "any funny shit". The victim felt unable to carry on in the car to the hospital and they returned to Mr Gomez's mother's address. An ambulance was called and the victim was taken to hospital.
9. The victim received sutures for her 3-centimetre stab wound and was prescribed antibiotics. A scan revealed a fracture to the bone of the left eye socket with multiple bony fragments, some of which had moved into the eye socket and stuck to the muscles of the eye. In addition to the fractures to the eye socket and laceration to the leg, she sustained a cracked and partially extruded incisor, bent nose and bruising.
10. Mr Gomez was arrested on 11 June 2024 and on 12 June he was interviewed under caution and answered "no comment" to all questions put to him by the police officers.

These proceedings

11. Mr Gomez was charged on 12 June 2024 with four offences, two offences of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, one being the punch to the eye, the other being the stab, intentional strangulation and breach of a restraining order. On 13 June 2024, Mr Gomez appeared at Guildford Magistrates' Court. It appears from inquiries that had been made (because of the absence of information on the magistrates' sending sheet) that he indicated a plea to an offence of grievous bodily harm with intent and the breach of the restraining order. It seems, from the information that we have, that was on a full-facts basis. Mr Gomez was sent to Guildford Crown Court for a pre-trial preliminary hearing on the same day. He was remanded in custody and it was apparent that there were difficulties at His Majesty's Prison Wandsworth, with many negative adjudications. It is also apparent that there has been a later improvement in his behaviour at His Majesty's Prison Woodhill.
12. Mr Gomez did not attend the pre-trial preliminary hearings by video link on 11 July, 23 August, 6 September and 8 October and in fact at the PTPH hearing on 6 September a trial date was fixed for 9 December. On 11 October Mr Gomez entered his guilty plea to one count of causing grievous bodily harm (count 1) and breach of a restraining order and it was then indicated those pleas were acceptable on the basis that Mr Gomez would be sentenced for count 1 on the basis that the assault encompassed all the allegations of violence made by the victim including the strangulation.
13. A pre-sentence report was ordered. It was ordered that the report should include an assessment of whether Mr Gomez met the dangerousness criteria. In fact Mr Gomez did not attend the probation appointment in custody and no pre-sentence report was obtained. A reference was obtained on Mr Gomez's behalf from Prison Advice and Care Trust who visited him in prison about his motivation to change and improve. It is apparent from the information we have been given by Mr Fullerton today that he was at the time on antidepressants and painkillers and he had also suffered an earlier injury following a motorbike accident at which he had suffered some broken bones in the lower limbs. The judge indicated that he would hear the facts of the case and mitigation before determining whether an adjournment was necessary for a further report to assist with dangerousness.
14. There was a victim personal statement and that showed that the victim said that the attack had broken her physically and emotionally. She felt she was going to die. She required surgery to avoid losing her sight and was likely to require further surgery in the future. She was unable to drive. The stab wound on her thigh had left a permanent scar which affected what she wore. She had been diagnosed with complex post-trauma stress disorder and suffered from insomnia and flashbacks. Her relationship with her 6 year-old son had been seriously affected by her absences during medical treatment and recuperation and they had to move to a different area requiring her son to change schools. The victim said she lived in constant fear of Mr Gomez and felt unable to go out or even use public transport.
15. Sentencing notes were produced for the hearing by the prosecution and the defence. So far as the section 18 offence was concerned, the prosecution submitted, and the defence accepted, that it fell towards the top end of culpability category A because of the presence of multiple category A factors. The prosecution submitted in their note that the offence fell within harm category 3 which was also agreed by the defence but in oral submissions the prosecution submitted that the harm approached the threshold for category 2. It was common ground that the breach of the restraining order was a category 2B offence for the purposes of the offence specific guideline, with a starting point of 12 weeks and range of medium-level community order to 1 year in custody. The prosecution contended that a discount of 25 per cent for plea was appropriate because although the pleas had been indicated at the Magistrates' Court, he had not attended pre-trial preliminary hearings and had not entered pleas at the first opportunity in the Crown Court. The defence contended that a discount of a third should be given for plea. In mitigation, reference was made to Mr Gomez's anxiety and depression, a disadvantaged background and the correlation between race and less favourable outcomes highlighted in the Sentencing Council Guidelines.

The Sentence

16. The judge when sentencing set out the facts. The judge accepted Mr Gomez had indicated in the Magistrates' Court that he would be pleading guilty and then, although he had not attended the pre-trial preliminary hearings, his solicitors had not heard whether the pleas were acceptable. Mr Gomez had suffered broken limbs in a motorbike accident. There was ADHD, anxiety and depression, for which he was on medication, and a third discount for plea was appropriate. The judge accepted that section 18 culpability was culpability A and that harm was the upper level of category 3 or the lower level of category 2, as he had not heard whether there was permanent irreversible injury.

The judge accepted that there were aggravating factors, being the relevant recent previous convictions, the attack being in a domestic abuse setting and failing to comply with the restraining order. The judge accepted by way of mitigation that Mr Gomez was showing insight, wanted to address his problems, was going to education classes in prison which reduced his risk so that an extended sentence was unnecessary.

17. The judge said that the bottom of category 2A was 6 years and the starting point for category 3A was 5 years. He said that after a trial, to take account of all the factors, a sentence of 6 years would have been justified with a discount for plea, meaning that the sentence was 4 years. A 3-month concurrent sentence for breach of the restraining order was imposed.

The Offence Specific Guidelines

18. The offence specific guidelines for wounding with intent identifies as culpability A factors use of a highly dangerous weapon or weapon equivalent, which can include a knife, strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation and a prolonged or persistent assault. Category 2 requires either a grave injury or permanent irreversible injury, not falling within category 1. Category 2A has a starting point of 7 years and a range of 6 to 10 years. Category 3A has a starting point of 5 years and a range of 4 to 7years.
19. Relevant aggravating factors under the guidelines include previous convictions for violence, a failure to comply with current court orders, the offence being committed in a domestic abuse setting and steps taken to prevent the victim reporting the incident.

An aggravating factor from the Domestic Abuse Guidelines is that the victim was forced to leave home.

20. Mitigating factors included remorse, and we are told that a letter was sent to the judge showing insight, and we have seen material on the Digital Case System. There is also his youth, mental disorder or learning disorder not linked to commission of offence, and a determination to address addiction and offending behaviour or a demonstration of steps taken. The guideline identifies that users should be aware that the Equal Treatment Bench Book covers aspects of fair treatment and disparity of the outcomes for different groups in the Criminal Justice System.
21. It was common ground that, so far as the breach of the restraining order was concerned, that was category 2B for the offence specific guideline.

This Reference

22. We will deal first, with the submission that the judge was wrong to conclude that mitigation included any mental health condition. In our judgment, the judge was entitled, and right, to take account of the information that Mr Gomez had mental disorders. It is impossible to watch the CCTV footage without realising that Mr Gomez was, after the event, acting in a bizarre fashion and there was evidence about the medication being taken by Mr Gomez. It is not apparent what discount the judge gave for this factor but he was entitled to give it some weight.
23. We turn next to the submission that the judge was wrong to give a full-third discount for plea. Mr Gomez, with the benefit of experienced legal representation, did indicate that he would plead guilty at the Magistrates' Court to the charges which became the counts to which he pleaded guilty and was on a full-facts basis. There were delays caused because the prosecution did not respond to the offer but there was also a failure from Mr Gomez to appear at the pretrial preliminary hearings or adjourned pretrial preliminary hearings. It seems, from what we were told, that there were issues about his medical conditions, anxiety and depression but there are notes on the Digital Case System suggesting he had attended a video link hearing at one stage, but had left before his advocate had attempted to talk to him.
24. In our judgment, it was generous not to reduce credit to reflect the failure to attend the first and adjourned pretrial preliminary hearings, but we are unable to say it was wrong in circumstances where the relevant pleas were indicated at the Magistrates' Court. Therefore the third credit remains.
25. We then deal with the submission about dangerousness. The judge had ordered a pre-sentence report and had asked that to address the issue of dangerousness but Mr Gomez did not attend the appointment. The judge did have the circumstances of the offence and the previous convictions. The judge did however have information from prison, showing that Mr Gomez was finally engaging in work to address his many issues, and importantly, the information before the judge from the link worker from the Prison Advice and Care Trust. We have also information from an updated prison report showing that after his move from HMP Wandsworth to Woodhill, Mr Gomez has not had any further negative adjudications and does seem to have calmed down and has started to comply with the regime. In these circumstances, we are unable to say the judge was wrong not to make a finding of dangerousness or was wrong to exercise his discretion not to impose an extended sentence, given the sentence length, his youth and the progress made.
26. This then brings us to the main point of the Reference for which we have given leave, namely that the overall sentence did not reflect the offences committed and that a sentence of at least 8 years before discount for plea was appropriate. It is apparent that Mr Gomez carried out the assault over a substantial period of time. He hit the victim in her left eye and fractured her cheekbone causing a serious fracture, necessitating an operation which still causes problems. He strangled her and then he stabbed her in the leg causing a 3-centimetre stab wound. There had been lasting physical and psychological factors and the victim has had to move house. There were multiple culpability A factors and the injury to the eye was serious. We agree with the judge that this, and indeed the submissions before us today, that this put the offence at the top of culpability A and at the bottom of harm category 2, on the cusp of category 3 and category 2A before one considers then the aggravating factors. There were serious aggravating factors which have already been outlined. None of us consider that a sentence after trial, reflecting all of the aggravating factors but before discount for mitigation, of less than 8½ years would have been appropriate. There is a discount for mitigation, which to mirror the approach of the judge, seems to have taken the judge down by a year. Applying the same principles, that would take the sentence of 8½ years to 7 years 6 months (90 months). For the reasons we have already given, we give the full third discount which reduces the sentence to one of 60 months, which is a sentence of 5 years.
27. We will therefore allow the Reference, to the extent of increasing the sentence on count 1 from one of 4 years to one of 5 years. The concurrent sentence of 3 months for count 4 will remain as it is.