Suspension of Sentence

Date01 September 2021
DOI10.1177/02645505211020523a
Published date01 September 2021
Subject MatterIn court
Applyingthe Assault Guideline, where a section 20 offence comes within Category
1 (greater harm and higher culpability), the recommended starting point is 3 years’
custody following contested trial, with a range between 30 months and 4 years.
Greaterharm was not disputed butJ.’s counsel took issuewith higher culpabilityon the
basis that he had not used either hammer or knife as a weapon in assaulting the victim.
If the case shouldthus properly countas Category 2 (on the basis of lesserculpability),
the starting point would be 18 months with a range between 12 and 36 months.
Addressing first the judge’s efforts to correct himself as regards the victim losing
consciousness,the Appeal Courtfound it ‘difficult to seewhy that made any difference,
given that it was accepted that this was an offence of greater harm’. Moving on to
culpability level, the Court observed that ‘irrespective of the issue about the use of a
weapon or equivalent, there area variety of other factors whichpoint, inescapably, to
this being a case ofhigher culpability’. In additionto J.’s dangerousness (see above),
there were all the aggravating features highlighted in the Domestic Abuse Guideline
(see above). J. had known that the children were in the house (he had been minding
themin his partner’s absence)and were likely to witness hisprolonged assault, plus‘the
sheer number of injuries inflicted’. His victim was vulnerable and it was at the least
arguable that this case involved the deliberate targeting of a vulnerable victim, not-
withstanding being a spur of the moment attack, lacking premeditation.
As regards thepoint sought to be made regarding weapon use, theissue could not
simply turnon whether or not the perpetrator had a weaponin his hand which he used
to strike the victim. The application of this aspect of the guidelines requires a more
‘holistic’approach.At different times J. had hadboth a hammer and a knife in his hand,
clearly intended at least to threaten the victim while he assaulted her. He had also
throwna bottle of wine at her, showeringher with broken glass,readily categorisedas
use of a weapon or equivalent. Further, he had hurled the victim against a tableand
then a cupboard. If he had struck her with a piece of wood, that would plainly have
been the use of a weapon. ‘Throwing her against the samepiece of wood is likely to
cause the same type of injury.’ ‘Itmight properly be regarded as over-pedantic tosay
that that was not the use of at least the equivalent of a weapon.’ The judge hadbeen
fully entitled toconclude that this crime had featured use of a weapon or equivalent.
In the Appeal Court’s conclusion, this prolonged episode of intimate partner
violence had been so serious that the judge had also been entitled to go beyond the
conventional upper Guideline limit of 4 years. Though a stern sentence, adopting a
starting point of four and a half years, resulting in 3 years after credit for plea, had
not been manifestly excessive.
R v JEFFS, [2021] 1 Cr App R(S) 49.
Suspension of Sentence
Note This cluster of decisions illustrates the application of the ‘balancing exercise’
that sentencers should undertake when determining whether to suspend a custo-
dial sentence (not exceeding 24 months), applying the factors set out in Imposition
377
In court

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT