Sentencing Those Who Assault Emergency Workers: A Guideline-influenced Approach: R v Whelan [2020] EWCA Crim 195
| Author | Neil Parpworth |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018320924185 |
| Published date | 01 June 2020 |
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Sentencing Those Who
Assault Emergency Workers:
A Guideline-influenced
Approach
R v Whelan [2020] EWCA Crim 195
Keywords
Assault on an emergency worker, possession of an offensive weapon, sentencing, whether
manifestly excessive
On 26 August 2019, police officers noticed the appellant looking into a car. He was searched and found
to be in possession of a spanner which had been adapted so that a Stanley knife blade had been attached
to the handle. The appellant was arrested for being in possession of a bladed article and taken to a police
station. While in custody officers attempted to remove his tracksuit bottoms. A struggle ensued and an
officer was kicked in the calf. In interview, the appellant claimed that he had not realised that he had
kicked the officer and that it had not been intentional. Three days later, following his release on bail, the
police answered a report of a man seen on a bike in possession of a knife. The appellant was stopped by
police officers and a knife was found directly underneath his bicycle. Following his arrest, he provided
an incoherent explanation for the presence of the knife and indicated that he was on drugs.
In his absence, the appellant was found guilty before the magistrates of two offences of having an
offensive weapon in his possession contrary to s 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, and one
offence of common assault on an emergency worker, contrary to s 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
and s 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. He was committed for sentence
pursuant to s 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. In a pre-sentence report, it was
stated that the appellant claimed not to be able to remember the events because he had been under the
influence of Valium, crack cocaine and heroin. His remorse for the common assault was recorded, and it
was suggested that it was out of character since he normally had positive interactions with the emergency
services. He was assessed as posing a medium risk of reoffending and of causing serious harm. Accord-
ingly, it was proposed that he should be subject to a 12-month community order with a six-month drug
rehabilitation requirement and a 20-day rehabilitation activity requirement.
In sentencing the appellant, the recorder noted his difficult background and that he had become
addicted to drugs following an accident in 2001. The offensive weapon offences were placed within
Category 2A of the relevant Sentencing Guideline. The starting point was six months’ imprisonment
with a sentencing range of three to 12 months. The assault on the police officer was regarded as being a
serious offence. The recorder noted that emergency workers required the protection of the courts. While
he had considered the possibility of a suspended sentence, he felt that the circumstances justified the
imposition of an immediate custodial sentence. In particular, the second offensive weapon offence was
aggravated in that it had been committed while the appellant was on bail. The recorder therefore
sentenced the appellant to si x months’ imprisonment for th e first offensive weapon offen ce, three
months’ imprisonment for the assault and nine months’ imprisonment for the second offensive weapon
The Journal of Criminal Law
2020, Vol. 84(3) 255–258
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018320924185
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial