Share:

Court of Appeal reduces sentence in GBH with Intent case

Sean represented the appellant, who had been sentenced to 5 years after an unprovoked attack on a passer-by resulted in grave injuries.  

At the sentence hearing, the judge had acceded to Sean’s request that half of the time the appellant spent on tagged curfew should be deducted from his sentence, despite the curfew only being in place for 7 hours each day.  The judge agreed that even though it was not a “qualifying” curfew condition requiring a statutory reduction within the meaning of s.240A, CJA 2023, it nevertheless constituted a significant restraint upon the defendant’s liberty such that it should be reflected in sentence. 

The Crown Court Order recorded a sentence of 5 years less 138 days, which caused some administrative confusion, and the case was listed under the slip rule for the judge to clarify the sentence.  In an apparent change of position, the judge stated that the sentence was one of 5 years, and that no further reduction would apply in respect of time spent on curfew as it had already been factored in when arriving at an appropriate sentence. 

Sean appealed the sentence. The Court of Appeal agreed that the judge had been clear that the sentence was one of 5 years less 138 days, and that the slip rule had been misused to increase the appellant’s sentence.  With reference to the case of Warren [2017] EWCA Crim 226, the Court confirmed that the slip rule should not be used simply because there is a change of mind about the nature or length of the sentence. 

The sentence of 5 years was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 4 years and 227 days. 

Sean Summerfield was instructed by Adrienne Wright, Partner & Head of Crime at TV Edwards Solicitors.