Jack Mapstone [2019] EWCA Crim 410

Jack Mapstone [2019] EWCA Crim 410 is a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Davis, Mr Justice King, and HHJ Martin Edmunds QC) refusing an application for leave to appeal against the imposition of an extended sentence for an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

The applicant had pleaded guilty on the day of trial at Lewes Crown Court on 17 July 2018 to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He was sentenced to an extended sentence of twelve and a half years, comprising a custodial term of seven years and six months and an extended licence period of five years. A restraining order was also made. The judge directed that no separate penalty be entered on an alternative count of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

The offence occurred on 31 January 2018, the applicant’s twenty-first birthday. Mr Mapstone had been drinking alcohol and taking illicit drugs. He was at the home of his then girlfriend, Miss Louise Smith. Her young son was also present but asleep throughout the incident. Mr Mapstone became very angry, primarily through jealousy, and launched a sustained attack on Miss Smith. He tried to strangle her, telling her he was going to kill her. He repeatedly punched, kneed and kicked her, and at one stage used a mobile phone as a weapon to strike her. During the assault he dragged her to a mirror and said words to the effect “This is what you made me do to your face”. The assault continued until he eventually stopped and telephoned his mother. An ambulance was called. Miss Smith sustained fractures to both eye sockets, a fractured nose, lacerations and extensive bruising. She also suffered from double vision thereafter.

The judge had the benefit of a psychiatric report which alluded to Mr Mapstone’s depressive history and a detailed pre-sentence report which assessed him as dangerous and recommended an extended sentence. The judge expressly accepted the reasoning and conclusion of the probation officer.

The applicant challenged the imposition of the extended sentence on the grounds that the judge was not justified in finding dangerousness and that, even if he was, he should have exercised his discretion to impose a determinate term instead. It was submitted that Mr Mapstone had no previous convictions, was relatively young, had the capacity to mature and change his ways, had shown real remorse, and had taken steps to address the underlying causes of his offending.

The court observed that the pre-sentence report had noted that the offending at first sight appeared somewhat spontaneous but had gone on to give a number of reasons why this initial impression did not hold up on more detailed analysis. The report examined Mr Mapstone’s background history and concluded that he posed a high risk of serious harm, particularly to future partners. Lord Justice Davis emphasised that whilst the judge was not bound to follow the recommendations of the pre-sentence report, he was entitled to accept them. There was no basis for saying that the judge was not entitled to accept the reasoning and conclusions of the probation officer. It was well within the proper range of reasonable evaluation to do so.

As to the alternative submission that the judge should have refrained from imposing an extended sentence even if dangerousness was established, the court held that this was a matter for the discretion of the judge. His acceptance of what the probation officer said gave every justification for proceeding to impose an extended sentence. The renewed application was accordingly refused.

The court did, however, grant leave to appeal on one technical point. The judge had imposed no separate penalty on the alternative count of inflicting grievous bodily harm. In view of the guilty plea to the section 18 offence, that count effectively fell away and should not have attracted an indication of no separate penalty. The appropriate direction was that the count should be left to lie on the file. In short, the appeal against the extended sentence was dismissed, but leave was granted to correct the technical error in relation to the alternative count.