R v James Rees [2024] EWCA Crim 1556

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2024] EWCA Crim 1556The Law CourtsSt Helen’s RoadSwanseaSA1 4PFDate Thursday 14 November 2024
Before
LORD JUSTICE MALESMRS JUSTICE JEFFORDMRS JUSTICE STACEY
Between
REXCrownV
Between
JAMES REES__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MR S MINTZ appeared for Appellant._________JUDGMENT(As Approved)
[1]On 23 November 2023, in the Crown Court at Caernarfon, the appellant (then aged 19) was convicted of two offences: count 1 on the indictment, the offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and count 3 on the indictment, having an offensive weapon in a public place, contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. On 19 December 2023, before the same court, the appellant was sentenced to 9 years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution on count 1 and 18 months’ detention in a Young Offender Institution on count 3, those sentences to be served concurrently. The appellant appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge. The Facts[2]The appellant and the victim, John Christopher Griffiths (known as Christopher), were known to each other from school but were not friends. On 2 January 2022, the appellant saw his ex-girlfriend, Mia, with Chris Griffiths. He believed that he and Mia were still in a relationship. In any case he was upset and angry. The appellant asked Mr Griffiths to get out of the car he was in, asked him to fight and started a fight with Mr Griffiths. However, Mr Griffiths got the better of the appellant.[3]On 6 January, the appellant sent Mr Griffiths a number of aggressive messages indicating again that he wanted a fight. He told the Probation Service that if he had been sober he would not have done this. At 7.00 pm on 7 January 2022, the appellant saw Mr Griffiths outside a fire station with some of his friends. The appellant asked Mr Griffiths if he wanted to sort it out but Mr Griffiths said “no”. The appellant did not give up and eventually the two of them walked away from their friends down an alleyway and discussed Mia. Mr Griffiths got the impression that the appellant was trying to stall him and drag the conversation out and eventually Mr Griffiths asked the appellant if he just wanted to shake hands and forget about it. The appellant said “yes” and they shook hands. As Mr Griffiths started to walk away, the appellant started talking about Mia again. He then asked Mr Griffiths to shake hands again. At that point, while holding on to Mr Griffiths’ hand, the appellant stabbed him in the stomach and ran away, leaving Mr Griffiths in the alleyway. Mr Griffiths described himself as feeling alone and very frightened.[4]Although Mr Griffiths initially thought he had been punched, he soon realised that he had been stabbed. He was fortunate to have friends nearby and was taken to hospital. He had sustained a wound, which was 1 to 2 centimetres in length, in the right lower quadrant of his abdomen. He began to exhibit signs of life threatening hypovolemic shock and, at that stage, was assessed as being in a critical condition. He underwent emergency surgery as there was around 2 litres of blood in his abdomen. Doctors thought that the knife used in the offence must have been at least 5-centimetres long to have caused the wound.[5]The appellant was subsequently arrested for the offences and a kitchen knife was recovered from underneath some cushions outside the appellant’s bedroom. In interview the appellant answered “no comment” to all questions asked by the police. The Appellant[6]The appellant was born on 10 January 2004 and was therefore just a few days short of his 18th birthday when he committed these offences. The Pre-Sentence Report on him indicated that he maintained that he had not brought the knife with him and that it was Mr Griffiths’ knife. He maintained that he had tried to deflect the knife away from himself and that was when Mr Griffiths must have been hurt. He did not know, he said, that Mr Griffiths had been hurt. He, therefore, continued to deny his guilt in respect of both of the offences of which he had been convicted.[7]The report set out a long history of mental health concerns which are particularly significant in one so young. The report said this:
“Mr Rees has a long history of mental health concerns due to depression that started when he was between the ages of 10 and 11. The trigger point seems to be a significant domestic incident between his parents whereby his mum, brother and himself had to barricade themselves in a bedroom and Mr Rees [the appellant] feared for their safety and thought that his mum was going to die. Mrs Rees (his mum) had advised that her marriage was fraught with many issues, and she cannot discount the impact that this has had on Mr Rees and his brother. Mr Rees has been under the care of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and received counselling for his symptoms, but this was impacted when the Covid pandemic hit. Mr Rees has been self-harming by cutting his arms, legs and torso for many years and attempted to take his own life by way of an overdose in the past. Since the early age of 12 Mr Rees has had significant substance misuse issues, ranging from alcohol to cannabis, MDMA, cocaine, amphetamine, ketamine and prescription medications such as diazepam. Prior to being remanded into custody he was working with Substance Misuse Services (SMS).”
The report stated that the appellant did not understand why these matters were relevant, which itself indicated a lack of maturity. The probation officer’s assessment was that the appellant’s thinking was impacted by his lack of maturity and his age. He was in an emotively heightened state which led to anger and violence and his thinking skills were also impaired by substance misuse. However, it was thought that with adulthood and abstinence his thinking skills would improve and he would be able to fully accept what he had done and the impact on others.[8]The report concluded under the heading “Thinking and Behaviour” as follows:
“Mr Rees is a young man of 19 and he does present as having a certain level of maturity for someone his age in certain areas for example having an insight into his own substance misuse and mental health issues. In some areas he does present as someone who can also act immaturely eg using violence to settle scores, acting impulsively and recklessly and as a person willing to take larger risks. During the offending he has shown a huge lapse in judgement and a lack of consequential thinking skills which could be down to his maturity level.”
Sentencing[9]In sentencing, the Recorder had regard to the relevant Guideline. He placed this offence in category 1A and there is now no dispute that that was the right categorisation. The starting point was, therefore, a sentence of 12 years’ custody and the range 10 to 16 years.[10]The Recorder stated that the appellant had shown no remorse. That was, we observe, clear from what the appellant had said in the Pre-Sentence Report.

The Recorder did not identify any aggravating factors other than a previous conviction for battery.

[12]The Recorder did identify a number of factors which he took into account in sentencing. These included the appellant’s youth; his lack of maturity in some areas; as identified in the pre-sentence report; the fact that this would be the appellant’s first custodial sentence; his mental health difficulties; his substance misuse; and the fact that nearly 2 years had passed since this incident which, as he said, is a long time for a young person. Taking account of all these matters, he made a downward adjustment from the starting point to the sentence of 9 years’ detention which he passed. The Grounds of Appeal[13]The appellant advances three grounds of appeal. The first ground is that the offence fell towards the lower end of category 1A. The second ground is that the appellant was a youth at the time of the offence and that a sentence in line with the Guideline for Sentencing Children and Young People was appropriate. Particular reliance is placed on paragraph 6.46 which states that, when considering the relevant adult guideline the court may feel it appropriate to apply a sentence broadly within the region of half to two-thirds of adult sentence for those aged 15 to 17. The Guideline continues:
“... in most cases when considering the appropriate reduction from the adult sentence the emotional and developmental age and maturity of the child or young person is of at least equal importance as their chronological age.”
The third ground is that inadequate account was taken of the 2 years that had elapsed between the offence and the trial, which was not in any way caused by the appellant who was not charged for 15 months.[14]So far as the first ground is concerned, there is, in our judgment, no merit in this ground. In terms of culpability, multiple aspects of high culpability were present. The attack on Mr Griffiths was planned and advertised by the threatening messages sent to him. The appellant was armed with a knife. He lured Mr Griffiths away from his friends and was persistent about doing so, leading Mr Griffiths to believe first that he just wanted to talk and then that they had resolved any differences with a handshake. The appellant drew Mr Griffiths back for another handshake to bring him close to him and stab him. The appellant’s motivation was revenge for, as the appellant saw it, Mr Griffiths taking his girlfriend away or for the fight that he had lost.[15]In terms of harm, Mr Griffiths’ injuries were not only life threatening but unsurprisingly took him months to recover from. Mr Griffiths had been in the Army and because of his lengthy period of recovery he was forced to give up his role in the military.[16]Far from placing this offence at the lower end of category 1A, we consider that these matters mean that, had the appellant been older and more mature, a sentence significantly above the starting point would have been appropriate.[17]In respect of the appellant’s youth and immaturity, having regard to paragraph 6.3 of the Guideline, as well as paragraph 6.46, we accept that regard should have been had to the maximum sentence that would have been passed on the appellant had he been 17 at the date of sentence. He is a young man, who has suffered the trauma of domestic abuse within the family home and he is immature in his thinking and his emotional reactions. However, he was very nearly 18 at the time of the offence and, although immature in some respects, he was not assessed as wholly immature, having insight into his own substance misuse and its causes.[18]We have considered also the character references from those who speak to the positive aspects of his character as a kind and supportive person. We note, further, that the appellant has also now been examined by a psychiatrist who has not diagnosed any serious mental illness beyond the matters referred to in the Pre-Sentence Report. Counsel has submitted that the psychiatrist’s report brings home the level to which the appellant had been engaged with mental health services prior to the commission of this offence but we consider that, although the report adds a considerable level of detail of his involvement, it, in reality,adds nothing to the matters that were already before the sentencing judge from the Pre-Sentence Report.[19]In our view, taking those matters into consideration, a significant reduction in sentence was merited to reflect the appellant’s youth and immaturity at the time of the offence and the mitigation offered by his personal circumstances. However, bearing in mind the seriousness of this offence, we have come to the view that the Recorder, in making no upward adjustment from the starting point and making a downward adjustment of 3 years, did take such sufficient account of these matters and that the sentence he passed was not manifestly excessive. The specific issue of the time between the commission of the offence and conviction was similarly taken into account in that downward adjustment and, in our judgment, no further adjustment was necessary. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 20. Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk