Williamson [2019] EWCA Crim 259

The defendant pleaded guilty to causing GBH with intent and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. His wife died in 2014 leaving him with the care of two young children and he turned to the use of cannabis to help him cope.

He began to grow it and in 2016 his crop was stolen. He was given a potential name for the thief and went to the address where a violent incident occurred leaving the victim with serious injuries.  The victim said that three armed men entered his house and assaulted him, and that the defendant was the main aggressor.

After pleading not guilty to aggravated burglary the defendant pleaded guilty to s18 on a written basis. The basis was that he had gone to the address unarmed and did not enter the house. The victim produced a baseball bat which was the catalyst for violence. He said that he had struck the victim multiple times in lawful defence but when the victim dropped the bat, he had struck him twice with the requisite intent. The Court understood that he was admitted striking the victim twice, unlawfully, with the baseball bat at the conclusion of the incident.

The basis was not accepted by the Crown as it was far removed from the victim’s account, but the judge did not feel a Newton hearing was necessary. There was a change of judge who interpreted that the first judge took the view that it would not make a material difference to sentence as the categorisation would remain the same. The offence fell within category 1, even on the defendant’s account although the defence argued it was within category 2. The judge identified exceptional circumstances to move from category 1 to 2 as being his positive good character coupled with the context of bereavement, genuine remorse and the position of his children who would now lose a second parent for a time.

In applying for leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient it was argued the offence was category 1, there was greater harm due to the severity of the injuries and higher culpability due to the use of a weapon. Aggravating features were the attack upon the victim in his own home, long-term physical and emotional harm and the fact the violence arose out of the defendant’s criminal conduct in cultivating cannabis. Those factors required upward movement and the undoubtedly significant mitigation could not justify the very substantial reduction given by the judge.

Held: the decision not to hold a Newton hearing was surprising, even if the categorisation remained the same there was a stark difference in the accounts which would make a difference as to where within the sentencing range the appropriate sentence would lie. The application must be considered on the basis of plea. The mitigation necessitated a significant reduction but not the substantial one given by the sentencing judge. The sentence was unduly lenient, the sentence of 4 years was quashed and substituted for one of 6 years 9 months.