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