Stanley, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 655

Case No 2007/05891/A5

[2008] EWCA Crim 655

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Venue Royal Courts of Justice

Date Thursday, 13th March 2008

Strand

London, WC2

B E F O R E:

LORD JUSTICE TOULSON

MR JUSTICE JACK

MR JUSTICE SIMON

Between

R E G I N ACrown

-v-

Between

DEAN MARK STANLEY

Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of

Wordwave International Limited

A Merrill Communications Company

190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr M Hillman appeared for Appellant

Mr A Stephens (Solicitor Advocate) appeared for Crown

J U D G M E N T

[1]MR JUSTICE JACK: There are two main issues on this appeal: the first whether a life sentence passed under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was appropriate or whether a sentence of imprisonment for public protection should have been passed; second, as to the length of the minimum term to be served.

[2]The appellant, Dean Stanley, had pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Kingston to four offences on 17th September 2007. On 8th October he was sentenced by His Honour John Samuels QC as follows:(1) wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, life imprisonment pursuant to section 225, with a minimum term of 4 years;

(2) assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the 1861 Act, 18 months' imprisonment concurrent;

(3) possession of cocaine, nine months' imprisonment concurrent;

(4) possession of heroin, nine months' imprisonment concurrent.

[3]The facts were as follows. Sarah Goodchild had been the appellant's girlfriend for eight months. Their relationship was described as rocky. On the evening of 7th June 2007 they went, first, to one public house in Walton on Thames and then to another. At the second they were arguing. He adopted a very possessive attitude towards her. She talked to other persons, including a Mr Blackburn. The appellant objected and was thrown out by the bouncers. Miss Goodchild left the public house at about 1 o'clock in the morning with Mr Blackburn. As they were walking to his home, to which he had also invited other people from the public house, the appellant happened to see them as he was driving past. He got out and ran towards them shouting. He kicked Miss Goodchild in the groin and pushed her onto the pavement. Mr Blackburn said, "Leave it, you've got the wrong end of the stick." There was then some pushing and shoving between the two men, and Mr Blackburn felt a push in his back and his legs almost went. He had been stabbed. Miss Goodchild tried to run, but slipped and fell. The appellant kicked her hard a number of times to the body and to the head. He punched her and stamped on her repeatedly, shouting obscenities. Neighbours called the police and he ran off as they arrived.

[4]The wound to Mr Blackburn was fortunately comparatively slight. It did not penetrate the pleural cavity and no stitches were needed, but he was very adversely affected psychologically. Miss Goodchild had a swollen and bloodshot eye, a cut within her hair, which was glued, scratches and other cuts. She was treated in hospital, but discharged herself.

[5]When the appellant was arrested the following afternoon he was found in possession of small quantities of cocaine and heroin.

[6]There was a written basis of plea, which was agreed by the prosecution. The relevant parts were to the following effect. The appellant had drunk significant alcohol and had taken crack cocaine. He had arranged to stay the night with a friend, and was driving there when he saw Miss Goodchild and Mr Blackburn. He got out of his car carrying a turf knife, which he had kept in the car for his work as a landscape gardener. (We interpose that he therefore got out and approached the two, having taken a knife into his hand.) He challenged them about what was going on between them. He and Mr Blackburn began to struggle and [He] hit Blackburn's back with his hand, which had the knife in it." He accepted kicking and punching Miss Goodchild.

[7]The appellant was born on 2nd June 1980 and is 27. He had appeared before the courts for sentence on 14 previous occasions for 41 offences, largely concerning drugs, motoring and minor offences. However, on 21st November 2003, he was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment for wounding with intent. The facts were that on 28th July 2003 an ex-partner of the appellant, Ms Morlang, had seen him in the street. She did not want to walk alone and asked Hugh Carpenter if he would walk with her to a telephone box. The appellant followed them and was abusive. He chased Mr Carpenter, caught up with him and attacked him. He punched Mr Carpenter several times to the head, causing him to fall. He then repeatedly kicked Mr Carpenter in the ribs and repeatedly stamped on his head. He ran off when a member of the public got involved. Mr Carpenter was left lying in a pool of blood. The attack on Mr Carpenter has close similarities to that on Mr Blackburn. He was seriously injured and he was given a 40 per cent chance of survival, with concerns as to brain damage.

[8]On 21st November 2003 the appellant was also sentenced to six months' imprisonment for an assault on 22nd May 2003 to another ex-partner in her home. He had punched her and pushed her over.

[9]The licence period under these sentences was due to expire on 12th September 2007, and the appellant was therefore on licence when he committed the present offences.

[10]The pre-sentence report described a difficult childhood. The appellant had been effectively homeless from the age of 15, save when he was staying with friends or with partners. He had misused drugs since he was 11. The report assessed the risk of reoffending as high, and likewise the risk of harm to the public and prospective partners. It concluded that he should be deemed to be dangerous.

[11]When he passed sentence the judge stated that he was of the opinion that there was a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public occasioned by the commission of further specified offences. That conclusion is today accepted by Mr Hillman on behalf of the appellant. The judge referred to the fact that under section 109 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 the appellant would have faced the possibility of a life sentence. He considered that a life sentence was appropriate here on the section 18 offence. He set the minimum at 4 years, less 119 days spent on remand.

[12]The first issue is whether a life sentence was appropriate. We are clear that it was not. The only practical difference between a sentence of imprisonment for public protection and a life sentence lies in the ability of the Parole Board in future to apply to the Secretary of State. With a sentence of imprisonment for public protection, the public is hopefully safeguarded as to the future and so some of the considerations relevant to life sentences under previous law are no longer appropriate. For the same reason we do not think that it is helpful to refer to section 109 of the 2000 Sentencing Act. As was observed in R v Costello

[2006] EWCA Crim 1618

, the requirement under section 225 of the 2003 Act is that the court must consider whether the seriousness of the offence with any associated offences is such as to justify a sentence of life imprisonment. The attack on Mr Blackburn and Miss Goodchild was serious, but it falls a long way short of the seriousness needed to justify a life sentence. The appropriate sentence was a sentence of imprisonment for public protection.

[13]We turn to consider the minimum term of 4 years specified by the judge. The arithmetic must be that he took a custody material terms of 12 years, reduced to 8 years for plea and to 4 years as the minimum term.

[14]In the Attorney-General's Reference No 18 of 2002 (Hughes)

[2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 9

, Rose LJ V-P considered the appropriate range of sentences for stabbing. Having referred to a number of authorities, he concluded in paragraph 21 of the judgment:

"In our judgment, the authorities to which we have referred demonstrate that, depending on the circumstances of the particular offence and whether or not there is a plea of guilty, a sentence within the bracket of 3 to 8 years is appropriate for offences contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, when a knife is used."

The facts of that case were that the offender had stabbed a boy who was unknown to him in the stomach with a 5 to 6-inch double edged knife. The boy was in hospital for eight days, but had made a full recovery. The offender had a record for violence. There was a plea of guilty. The court held that 6 years was appropriate. The top end of the bracket given as 8 years even after a trial appears low.

[15]Some of the authorities referring to stabbings were again reviewed in R v Sandasi

[2005] 2 Cr App R (S) 92

. There, in a worse case so far as the facts relating to the stabbing itself are concerned, it was held that 9 years would have been appropriate after a trial.

[16]The Sentencing Guideline for assault and other offences against the person, published in February 2008 and applying to sentences passed on or after 3rd March 2008, suggests a range of 7 to 10 years for a premeditated wounding with a weapon carried to the scene with the specific intent of injuring the victim, but where no grave injury is caused. The appellant here formed his intent when he saw Mr Blackburn and Miss Goodchild and left his car carrying the knife. The judge, of course, had to sentence without the benefit of the Guideline.

[17]In setting the minimum term, in addition to the facts relating to the stabbing of Mr Blackburn, we have to take into account the vicious attack on Miss Goodchild, with fists and feet, and also of the very serious assault for which the appellant was sentenced in November 2003, an assault which also arose from his morbid jealousy. Those two factors mean that a higher starting point is called for. We have to bear in mind that the injury to Mr Blackburn was slight.

[18]We conclude that following a trial a custodial sentence of 10 years would have been appropriate. That gives a minimum term of 3 years and 4 months, after taking one-third off for early plea and halving the custodial term to arrive at the minimum term. That, less the 119 days served on remand, will be substituted for the minimum term of 4 years.

[19]We have also to consider the sentence of 18 months passed on the assault of Miss Goodchild. Because this was a non-serious specified offence and because the judge had concluded that the appellant was a dangerous offender, an extended sentence under section 227 of the 2003 Act was required (see R v Reynolds

[2007] EWCA Crim 538

, at paragraph 5(e)). An extended sentence with a custodial term of 18 months and an extension period of 18 months will be substituted for the sentence passed by the judge. It will remain concurrent. That does not increase the term that the appellant is bound to serve.

[20]The appeal is allowed to the extent that we have stated. ______________________________