Key Facts
- •David Richards convicted of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
- •Sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with additional requirements and a restraining order.
- •Attorney General referred the sentence as unduly lenient.
- •Incident stemmed from a long-standing dispute with neighbour, Philip Ennis.
- •Richards used shears, injuring Ennis's head and arm.
- •Richards claimed self-defense.
- •Significant delay in the trial and sentencing.
- •Richards had a previous conviction from 1982, but no subsequent offences.
- •Judge considered Sentencing Council Guideline, finding medium culpability with elements of lesser culpability due to potential excessive self-defense and history of abuse by Ennis.
Legal Principles
Unduly lenient sentence test.
Attorney General Reference No 4 of 1989 [1991] WLR 41
Sentencing guidelines are not tramlines; flexibility allowed under sections 59 and 60 of the Sentencing Code.
Sentencing Code, sections 59 and 60
Duty to follow sentencing guidelines unless contrary to the interests of justice. Categorization of culpability involves balancing characteristics to reach a fair assessment.
Sentencing Code, section 60
In determining whether a sentence should be suspended or immediate, strong personal mitigation and the Imposition Guideline are relevant.
Imposition Guideline (referenced but not explicitly cited)
High prison population is a relevant factor when deciding whether a sentence must be served immediately or can be suspended.
Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232
Outcomes
Leave to refer the sentence refused.
While the judge's reasoning lacked clarity, the sentence, though lenient, was within the range reasonably open to a judge considering the unusual circumstances of the case, including the offender's background, age, and the long history of abuse between him and the victim.