Danny Blackford [2019] EWCA Crim 1513

**Danny Blackford** [2019] EWCA Crim 1513 was an appeal against sentence heard by the Court of Appeal (Jeremy Baker J and McGowan J), which was dismissed.

Mr Blackford had been convicted by a jury of blackmail and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. On 29 April 2019 he was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for the blackmail and six months concurrent for the assault, making a total of 15 months. He appealed against sentence with the permission of the single judge.

The offences occurred on the morning of 12 July 2018 at a farm in Churchstanton. Mr Blackford and a friend attended the farm where the complainant was working. Mr Blackford shouted that the complainant owed him £30 for looking after his partner’s horse. The complainant replied that he would not pay until Mr Blackford returned the bridle which belonged to the complainant’s partner. Mr Blackford then approached the complainant and knocked a board from his hands. He shoved the complainant’s shoulders with both hands, causing him to stumble backwards. Mr Blackford continued to approach in an aggressive manner and the complainant tried to escape through a gateway. Mr Blackford slammed the gate shut to prevent his exit and said “You’re going to pay me that fucking money, else I’ll cause you a load of shit on this farm.” The complainant became so upset that he agreed to pay. As the complainant went to extract £30 from a bag strapped to his waist, Mr Blackford struck him in the face with his fist. The complainant fell backwards onto the concrete surface, hitting the back of his head with force, and lost consciousness. Another person present summoned the emergency services. Before they arrived, Mr Blackford had taken the £30 from the bag and the complainant had regained consciousness. Mr Blackford apologised before the complainant was taken to hospital. In police interviews Mr Blackford claimed he struck the complainant because he thought he was reaching for a knife.

The complainant’s teeth cut through his lips, his dentures were broken, and there was bruising to his face and a wound to the back of his head. After leaving hospital he suffered concussive headaches for about five weeks and was left with facial numbness and scarring to the back of his head where hair did not regrow. He also suffered psychological injury including depression and anxiety, leading to lack of sleep and avoidance of locations where he might encounter Mr Blackford.

Mr Blackford was 36 years old and had no previous convictions. A significant number of letters attested to the positive side of his character, including his commitment to hard work and reliability. He had provided a letter setting out his family commitments and the stress he had been under at the time, arising from his wife’s serious ill health and business difficulties. The pre-sentence report noted that his behaviour appeared out of character but observed that it was an overreaction triggered by his perception of being disrespected, motivated by a desire to intimidate and control the victim to gain what he claimed was owed. The judge had described Mr Blackford at trial as arrogant and a bully and stated that this remained an accurate description of his behaviour that day.

On appeal, Mr Rose acknowledged that blackmail normally resulted in significant immediate custody but submitted that given the particular facts, Mr Blackford’s lack of previous convictions, and the detrimental effect of his incarceration on his family, the sentence was too long and ought to have been suspended.

The Court of Appeal agreed that blackmail normally resulted in significant immediate custody but emphasised that it was necessary to consider carefully the particular facts of each case, as blackmail could arise in a wide variety of circumstances. The court acknowledged that the incident was of relatively short duration, the threat was non-specific in nature and related to money Mr Blackford considered owed to him. However, the incident also involved aggressive behaviour and thereafter a significant degree of physical violence. The court considered that the judge could equally have imposed a longer sentence for the assault with a shorter concurrent sentence for the blackmail. If that course had been adopted, this was a Category 1 assault occasioning actual bodily harm under the relevant guideline. Greater harm was indicated by injury which was serious in the context of the offence, and the court observed that it was not unusual for assaults in such circumstances to give rise to life-threatening or fatal injury. Higher culpability was indicated by Mr Blackford having deliberately caused more harm than was necessary. The appropriate starting point for the assault was therefore 18 months’ imprisonment with a category range of one to three years. Moreover, the ongoing effect upon the complainant would have justified an increase from the starting point within the range.

The court acknowledged that it was necessary to take into account Mr Blackford’s lack of previous convictions, the mitigation arising from the stresses under which he was labouring at the time, and the inevitably detrimental effect of his loss of liberty upon his family. However, the court held that the determination of 15 months adequately took into account the mitigation available and that the judge was justified in considering that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody. Looking at the whole of the criminality disclosed by the offending, the court did not consider that the total sentence was either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

In short, the appeal against a total sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment for blackmail and assault occasioning actual bodily harm was dismissed, the court holding that the sentence adequately reflected the criminality and available mitigation.