"I have carefully considered the imposition guidelines in this case. I have to consider whether an immediate custodial sentence is inevitable given the seriousness of what you did on that day by picking up a wood which caused the injury that it caused. I consider that appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody."
"During a tense and unpleasant verbal confrontation between your family and your neighbours, between whom there was ongoing bad blood, you took up a length of wood to use as a weapon, and used it in an act of reckless violence that has effectively blinded your neighbour in one eye. Recorder Siddiqui was in my view correct to categorise your offence as 'B1' under the applicable Sentencing Council Guideline and to begin her consideration with the Guideline starting point for that Category. Your new counsel's suggestion that the short-lived nature of your violent action should have reduced the Category B1 starting point is not realistic. The calm and deliberate use, as a weapon, of an item capable of and in fact causing life-changing injury, selected from the materials available in your front yard, is the dominant feature of the case as regards culpability, putting it squarely in Category B. In my view, original counsel was correct to accept as much and cannot be criticised for doing so."
"The argument, next, that the custodial term, prior to discount for plea, should not have been three years, is no more than an attempt to re-plead the mitigation that was put before the Recorder. She judged that it balanced the aggravating factor she identified. There is no error of principle in that, and it cannot arguably be said to have been an unreasonable view to take. In any event, the final custodial term of two years, after a generous application of full credit for a plea at the PTPH, is not arguably excessive for this offence."
"That leaves only the argument that Recorder Siddiqui was wrong not to suspend sentence. Under the Imposition Guideline, an assessment that only immediate custody will appropriately punish the offence in question may properly be sufficient reason to decline to suspend. That was the Recorder's assessment here, and I do not think it arguable that that was an unreasonable assessment. I see no reason to infer that the Recorder failed to have in mind the matters now emphasised by your new counsel, all of which were before the Recorder when sentencing. I do not think it arguable that the Recorder, who said she had considered the Imposition Guideline carefully, did not really do so, or misapplied it when doing so. For those reasons, … in my view the sentence of immediate imprisonment in fact imposed was not arguably wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. I have therefore refused leave to appeal."