Jamal Poku [2019] EWCA Crim 1209

The appellant was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment.

The victim was a shop assistant who declined to sell him cigarettes without identification, the appellant armed himself with a wine bottle from the shelf and struck the victim over the head, a struggle ensued, and he grabbed a second bottle and hit him again. The victim was left with 6 significant lacerations to the head requiring 35 stitches and a scan revealed a left frontal laceration with adjacent locules of air. The appellant made an admission on arrest but declined to answer questions in interview.

The Recorder placed the offending in category 1 and discounted the sentence on the basis of his previous good character and the “possibility of a peripheral degree or very marginal degree of autism” (but declined to adjourn for a report in the issue). He further discounted the sentence as the appellant’s mother had reported what he had done to the police.

The grounds of appeal argued that the Recorder erred in his determination this was a category 1 case rather than a category 2 or even 3.

Held: the Court were persuaded that whilst coming very close to the sort of sustained incident which would place the offence in category 1 it did not quite qualify for a finding of greater harm. The level of harm and the number of blows with two bottles was indicative of the appellant intending to cause a serious level of harm. The Court was persuaded that in the context of the stark difference between starting points that the offence should be assessed as coming within lesser harm, a conclusion reached by the “finest of margins”. The offence should be placed in category 2 but the nature of the attack, coupled with the harm caused, moved the sentence to the top of the range. With a discount for good character and personal mitigation a downward adjustment resulted in the same sentence of 7 years. The discount for the mother informing the police was not justifiable, it reflected no credit on the appellant and was irrelevant to sentence. The appeal was dismissed.