Sentences of three years, nine months’ imprisonment for an offender who pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm, and four years, six months’ imprisonment for an offender who had been found guilty after trial for the same offence, were unduly lenient.
GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM
A sentence of six years and eight months’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of an offender who had pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm and attempted robbery. He had gone to the home of a vulnerable acquaintance and, in an incident lasting some 30 minutes, had threatened him with a knife, demanded money, and assaulted him, causing bruising and lacerations to his face and arm and a bleed to the brain.
A sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment for two violent offences against a mother and her child was unduly lenient and was replaced by a term of seven?and?a?half years imprisonment where the aggravating features had not been properly taken into account, such as the fact that the assault had been committed against a child, that the victims had been forced to leave their home, that the offences had been committed under the influence of alcohol and that the accused had previous convictions for violence.
Body modification, such as the removal of an ear or nipple, or tongue splitting, performed on a consenting adult by a practitioner with no medical training or qualification, could not form an exception to the general rule in R. v Brown (Anthony Joseph)  1 A.C. 212 that consent was no defence to causing actual bodily harm or wounding. Even if Parliament or the Supreme Court revisited the general rule and adifferent line was drawn to allow consent to act as a defence to causing actual bodily harm and wounding, body modification caused really serious harm.
A sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of an offender who had been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent after carrying out a sustained assault on his tenant.