ABH

The sentence of four years for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was not manifestly excessive taking into account the totality of the sentence.

[2004] EWCA Crim 1318

A conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was safe as the judge was entitled to indicate what the law was regarding hostile witnesses and to remind the prosecution of its duty to decide whether a witness could be presented as reliable. The judge correctly exercised his discretion in refusing to discharge the jury following the arrest of a witness as the jury were aware of his criminal record and the judge had directed accordingly.

[2003] EWCA Crim 3733

The applicant’s convictions were safe as his case had been put in a fair and balanced way and the judge’s summing up had been adequate.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2461

A sentence of 18 months for aggravated burglary with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm by a husband on his ex-wife was unduly lenient and a sentence of three and a half years would be substituted

[2003] EWCA Crim 1619

A sentence of four years for aggravated burglary, where the victim was vulnerable and elderly, was unduly lenient, so it was quashed and a sentence of seven years substituted.

[2003] EWCA Crim 1031

A sentence of two years imprisonment for robbery was unduly lenient given the defendant’s bad character and the use of a weapon.

[2003] EWCA Crim 605

A community punishment and rehabilitation order was unduly lenient for an offence of attempted robbery, assault and criminal damage. Although in the circumstances a four-year sentence would have been appropriate, the court had to take into account the fact that it was sentencing for a second time and make a reduction accordingly.

[2003] EWCA Crim 685

Offences of street crime inevitably crossed the custody threshold. However, the court was always entitled to consider the sentence most suitable, taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the offender.

[2003] EWCA Crim 473

A sentence of eight months’ imprisonment for assault occasioning actual bodily harm for a man who, after a long drinking session threw a bottle which cut a barman’s head, was not manifestly excessive despite his previous good character, his early guilty plea and his contrition.

[2002] EWCA Crim 2124

A total sentence of four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for blackmail, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and destroying property was reduced on appeal to a total term of three years.

[2002] EWCA Crim 2122

A total sentence of ten years’ imprisonment for supplying heroin, two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and threatening to destroy or cause damage to property was thoroughly deserved.

[2002] EWCA Crim 1978

Where there had been sufficient evidence to charge an accused but no decision had been made to charge him irrespective of his account and where there had been no breach of Code of Practice C, an adverse inference could be drawn from the accused’s no comment interview.

[2002] EWCA Crim 931

The decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Fennell (2000) 2 Cr App R 318 was approved. Criminal damage was an either way offence punishable on conviction, on indictment, with a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment irrespective of the value of the damage caused.

[2002] EWCA Crim 421

Where the respondent had threatened to kill the victim following the end of their relationship, and had broken into her parents’ house and assaulted her and her father, a total sentence of two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment was unduly lenient and was quashed and substituted with a total term of four years.

[2002] EWCA Crim 95

Tariff review of a youth sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure after being convicted of murder. Where the appropriate tariff for an adult was found to be 14 years the appropriate tariff for a 15-year-old for the same offence was ten years.

Where there was the prospect that the appellant would turn away from his offending on his release from prison, a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for a series of robberies on mini-cab drivers was manifestly excessive and was quashed and substituted with a total term of ten years.

[2001] EWCA Crim 2395

Concurrent sentences of four years’ imprisonment on each of four offences of causing grievous bodily harm with intent were unduly lenient where the defendant had injured police officers by ramming their cars with his vehicle and were substituted with terms of five years.

[2001] EWCA Crim 2114

In a successful appeal against conviction by two prison officers the jury’s verdicts disclosed an impermissible process of reasoning making the convictions unsafe.

[2001] EWCA Crim 2141

Total sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment for two offences of robbery, where the respondents had kept the victims captive in cars and had intimidated them with future violence, were unduly lenient and were quashed and substituted with terms of four and a half years and two and a half years respectively.

[2001] EWCA Crim 1963

Where the appellant had confronted police officers with a gun, with the intention of being shot at, a sentence of two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence was not manifestly excessive.

[2001] EWCA Crim 1811

A sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm where the defendant had bitten off the tip of the victim’s nose was not unduly lenient.

[2001] EWCA Crim 1491

Guidelines on sentencing for racially aggravated offences.

[2001] EWCA Crim 170

The House of Lords overruled the decision of the Court of Appeal that DNA samples that should have been destroyed under s.61 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were not admissible in a trial for a separate matter. DNA evidence obtained as a result of the prohibited investigation was admissible, but s.64(3B)(b) of the Act had to be read in conjunction with s.78 of the Act, and under s.78 there was a discretionary power to exclude that evidence if it was unfair to admit it.

A direction as to circumstances where manslaughter could be found in a murder trial, given well after the jury retired and just as they were about to present their verdict, did not render a conviction for murder unsafe.

The appellant was equally as responsible as his co-accused for an attack on a defenceless man. However, the fact that the injuries caused by his co-accused were far greater than those caused by the appellant meant that he should have received a shorter sentence.

A sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment was unduly lenient for a series of attacks that displayed a repetition of criminal behaviour. A sentence of six to seven years’ imprisonment was appropriate with a discount, where a defendant had provided a statement to the police implicating another man in a serious assault.

Six month detention and training orders were appropriate where two 16-year-old defendants with a number of previous convictions had pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and had been held on remand for 124 days prior to sentencing.

Where a complainant had made an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against defendants who argued self defence and had not disclosed that he himself had a pending hearing for a public order offence, such a factor was unlikely to undermine a conviction. At its highest, the offence was pending and what the jury had to consider was when, and in what circumstances, the aggression in the instant case arose.

Where DNA profile evidence from earlier, unrelated and discontinued proceedings had been retained in breach of s.64 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a conviction based on subsequent DNA evidence obtained only as a result of that breach was unsafe and would be quashed. Overruled in Attorney-General’s Reference No.3 of 1999 (2000) LTL 14/12/2000.

Appeal against a conviction for aggravated vehicle taking and three assaults occasioning actual bodily harm was allowed as a result of fresh evidence of expert video analysis.

Defendant’s appeal against actual bodily harm conviction dismissed because: (i) any inconsistency in the jury’s verdict had not been Wednesbury unreasonable; and (ii) the inappropriate admission of evidence of the defendant’s dismissal from his employment after unsubstantiated allegations of racism against him had not prejudiced his case because the alternative count of racially motivated assault had been rejected by the jury.

In an unsuccessful appeal against conviction where the appellant had been charged, inter alia, with racially aggravated criminal damage, the judge had been entitled to put an alternative and lesser charge of simple criminal damage to the jury without amending the indictment to add an additional count as criminal damage was not triable only summarily. Accordingly, R v Burt (1996) 161 JPN 77 was decided per incuriam.

There must be a proper factual basis before a direction under R v Sheehan & Anor(1960) 60 Cr App R 308, in respect of drunken intent, was required.

A conviction for buggery pre-Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 did not equate to rape within the meaning of s.2(5)(e) Crime (Sentences) Act 1997; the defendant’s appeal against his life sentence was allowed.

In an appeal against a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment for one offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, whilst there was a need to emphasise deterrence in discouraging violence of this type, having regard to the decision in R v Ollerenshaw (1999) 1 Cr App(S) 65, the sentence was excessive and was accordingly substituted with a term of six months’ imprisonment.

In an appeal against a total sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment for offences of theft and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, whilst the sentence could not in any way be described as manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, in view of the appellant’s personal circumstances and the need to care for her five dependant children, the Court of Appeal would exercise its mercy and compassion and substitute her sentence with a term of six months’ imprisonment, thereby guaranteeing her immediate release.

In considering a submission of inconsistency of verdicts, the Court of Appeal was entitled to have regard to a view expressed by the trial judge.

In appeals by both appellants against 12-month sentences for cruelty to children, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the fact that as a consequence of the neglect one of the children died, such sentences would not be regarded as manifestly excessive or wrong and the appeals of both appellants were dismissed.

In an appeal against conviction for offences of kidnapping, possession of an imitation firearm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, prejudice must have occurred as a result of the jury being wrongfully made aware of the appellant’s previous convictions and accordingly the conviction was unsafe and would be quashed.

Drawing attention in examination-in-chief to the fact that a prosecution witness was of good character, whereas the defendant was not, was unfair and made the conviction unsafe.

Where the central issue in a case was whether the accused or the Crown witnesses had told the truth, then the jury would not be assisted by any general direction about drawing inferences of guilt from a finding that the evidence of the accused or his witnesses was untrue.

Following fresh evidence, it was clear that a mistake about identity could have occurred, which was sufficient in the circumstances to quash the conviction.

A sentence of three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for an offence of sustained and racially aggravated actual bodily harm by a defendant with a substantial record of violence was not manifestly excessive. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 gave up to two years’ additional imprisonment for racially motivated offences.

First defendant’s appeal and second defendant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction for causing actual bodily harm were dismissed. The application for leave to appeal would have been granted had there been arguable grounds, even though it was out of time.