CA (Crim Div) (Nicola Davies LJ, Spencer J, Edis J)
24 September 2019
An application for permission to appeal against a 13-year extended sentence imposed following a conviction for wounding with intent, where the judge had made a finding of dangerousness without the benefit of a pre-sentence report, was refused. Although such a finding without a pre-sentence report required careful justification, the trial judge had been able to form an impression of the offender and had a proper basis for making the finding.
CA (Crim Div) (Males LJ, Simler J, Murray J)
21 June 2019
In a trial of wounding with intent contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.18, the judge had been entitled not to leave to the jury an alternative count of simple wounding under s.20. The defendant’s position was not that he was guilty under s.20 having stabbed the victim without intending to cause really serious harm, but that he was not guilty at all. Accordingly, s.20 had not been an obvious alternative count.
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, Picken J, Sir David Foskett)
21 May 2019
A total sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment for aggravated burglary, wounding with intent and having an offensive weapon was unduly lenient and a term of nine years was substituted.
CA (Crim Div) (Thirlwall LJ, Andrews J, Judge Dhir QC)
12 April 2019
The court quashed a sentence of imprisonment for public protection imposed for wounding with intent and replaced it with hospital and restriction orders under the Mental Health Act 1983 s.37 and s.41 respectively. The offender had served more than twice the minimum term ordered and the s.37 and s.41 regime was the most effective way of protecting the public and of monitoring his continued treatment.
CA (Crim Div) (Sir Brian Leveson PQBD, Nicol J, Sir Brian Keith)
20 February 2019
A reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission relating to a murder conviction was unsuccessful where the court found that the subsequent judgments in R. v Jogee (Ameen Hassan)  UKSC 8 and R. v Johnson (Lewis)  EWCA Crim 1613 did not result in any substantial injustice to the offender by means of a change in the law.
CA (Crim Div) (Flaux LJ, Andrews J, Judge Chambers QC)
21 December 2018
An extended 11-year sentence with a three-year licence period was quashed where the sentencing Recorder had failed to give reasons for disagreeing with an assessment of dangerousness in the pre-sentence report and had erred in exercising his discretion to impose an extended sentence. A determinate sentence of nine years’ detention was substituted.
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, McGowan J, Kerr J)
18 December 2018
A jury’s retention during their deliberations of a transcript of video evidence from the deceased in a murder trial, accusing the defendant of attempted robbery prior to his death, did not affect the fairness of the trial or the safety of the conviction. Although the judge had not given a direction warning the jury not to place undue weight on the transcript, he had given clear warnings about the hearsay evidence and when he had circulated his proposed directions to the advocates, neither had suggested such a direction.
CA (Crim Div) (Flaux LJ, Whipple J, Sir Brian Keith)
18 December 2018
A 10-year extended sentence, comprising a seven-year custodial period and a three-year extension period, was appropriate in the case of a 17-year-old offender who had pleaded guilty to affray, having a bladed article and wounding with intent after he stabbed a teenager in the street, causing serious injuries.
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, Cutts J, Sir Brian Keith)
12 December 2018
A man who conspired to pay an assault victim to retract his statement identifying him as an assailant, resulting in a not guilty verdict, was jailed for five years for perverting the course of justice. However, the judge had erred by sentencing on the basis that the man had committed the assault. The judge had not been entitled to go behind the verdict. The man’s guilt was irrelevant, what was important was that he had avoided trial by perverting the course of justice. The starting point had been too high and the sentence was reduced to four years’ imprisonment.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Phillips J, Cutts J)
7 November 2018
An eight-year extended sentence, comprising a five-year custodial term and a three-year extension period, was appropriate in the case of a 15-year-old who had been convicted of wounding with intent. The nature of the offence, the stabbing of a woman on the street at night, together with the offender’s lack of self-control and propensity for aggression meant that he was dangerous and an extended sentence was necessary to protect the public.