GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM

QBD (Admin) (Supperstone J)
17 December 2019

A Polish national who had allegedly stabbed a victim in Slovenia could not be extradited to Poland as the requirement of the Extradition Act 2003 s.64(4)(b) was not satisfied, namely that the conduct had to constitute an extra-territorial offence under UK law. The relevant extra-territorial offence under UK law would be attempted murder, but it could not be necessarily implied from his conduct that the individual had intended to kill the victim.

[2019] EWCA Crim 2202

[2019] EWCA Crim 2202
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Sweeney J, Sir Roderick Evans)
11 December 2019

Concurrent sentences of 40 months’ imprisonment imposed following guilty pleas to three counts of grievous bodily harm with intent was not manifestly excessive where the injuries were in the form of body modification procedures carried out with the victims’ consent. Although such consent could not provide a defence, it did place the offences in the “lower culpability” category for sentencing purposes, notwithstanding the use of a knife.

[2019] EWCA Crim 2095

[2019] EWCA Crim 2095
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, William Davis J, Judge Lodder QC)
19 November 2019

A judge had erred when imposing a life sentence on an offender already serving an extended determinate sentence, in setting the minimum term to run from the expiry of the custodial element of the extended sentence rather than from the offender’s earliest release date from that sentence.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1836

[2019] EWCA Crim 1836
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Cockerill J, Judge Bate)
1 November 2019

Although two defendants who had pleaded guilty to violent disorder and had been convicted of applying a corrosive fluid with intent to cause grievous bodily harm were dangerous within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Pt 12 s.229, determinate sentences of 12 and 14 years’ imprisonment provided a sufficient degree of protection to the public to make an extended sentence unnecessary. An extended sentence, including a custodial term of 16 years, was appropriate for a third defendant convicted of similar offences, who had armed himself with the corrosive fluid and had used it indiscriminately, and had previous convictions which indicated a pattern of offending.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1865

[2019] EWCA Crim 1865
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Carr J, Judge Thomas QC)
25 October 2019

A judge had failed to pay adequate regard to the likelihood of a young offender’s development and susceptibility to change in the right environment when imposing an extended sentence for offences including robbery. The judge had been wrong not to find that the offending, serious though it was, could be sufficiently punished and the public sufficiently protected by a determinate sentence.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1718

[2019] EWCA Crim 1718
CA (Crim Div) (Hamblen LJ, William Davis J, Andrew Baker J)
11 October 2019

In assessing the dangerousness of a young offender a judge should specifically address, and give sufficient weight to, the age and apparent maturity of the offender.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1716

[2019] EWCA Crim 1716
CA (Crim Div) (Haddon-Cave LJ, Cockerill J, Judge Bate)
8 October 2019

Applying the rule of speciality, an extradition defendant should only be dealt with for the offences detailed in the European Arrest Warrant. Furthermore, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.240ZA and s.243, time spent in custody awaiting extradition counted towards a subsequent sentence of imprisonment.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1815

[2019] EWCA Crim 1815
CA (Crim Div) (Spencer J, Edis J)
26 September 2019

A sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment for inflicting grievous bodily harm where the victim had been in the first trimester of pregnancy was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the injury caused with a single punch and the context of domestic violence.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1232

[2019] EWCA Crim 1232
CA (Crim Div) (Holroyde LJ, Warby J, Julian Knowles J)
27 June 2019

In a case of domestic burglary which attracted the minimum sentencing provisions of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.111, there were no particular circumstances which made it unjust to apply the minimum sentencing provisions. Many years had passed since the commission of the first burglary which qualified under s.111, but not since commission of the second, and the offender had committed a succession of other criminal offences in the meantime. It was to his credit that he had shown a willingness to address his drug habit, but there was no evidence capable of providing a solid foundation for saying that there was a realistic prospect of successful rehabilitation.

[2019] EWCA Crim 807

[2019] EWCA Crim 807
CA (Crim Div) (Haddon-Cave LJ, Popplewell J, O'Farrell J)
2 May 2019

A total sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of an appellant who had pleaded guilty to two counts of assisting an offender. He had taped over the number plates on the offender’s van and concealed a CCTV unit in order to impede the offender’s apprehension and prosecution for offences of criminal damage and grievous bodily harm with intent.

Scroll to top