If it was a condition of consent that Botox injections would be administered by a doctor, then that affected the question of the identity of the party administering the injections and the legal validity of the recipients’ consent. That was different to the circumstances in R. v Richardson (Diane)  Q.B. 444 and did not amount to including qualifications within the definition of “identity”.
GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM
A sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with intent expressed as an extended sentence pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.226A, comprising a custodial term of 15 years and an extension period of five years was quashed and replaced by a determinate sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. A significant determinate sentence was appropriate without the need for an extension.
A determinate sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for attempting to cause grievous bodily harm was unduly lenient and replaced with a 17-year extended sentence where the offender had attacked a sex worker with a claw hammer having been released on licence from a life sentence for manslaughter. He was a dangerous offender and the judge had been wrong in principle when sentencing to take account of how the Parole Board would approach the offender’s release.
The court upheld an offender’s convictions for indecent assault and attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm committed against his younger brother when they were both under 18. It could not be said that the manner in which the trial was conducted by the offender’s own counsel was so flawed as to render his conviction unsafe.
An extended sentence should not have been imposed on an offender where none of the co-accused had received an extended sentence and there were no factors which significantly differentiated him from the co-accused.