R v Lewis Richard John Romanis
[2023] EWCA Crim 1612
R v Karley Harding
10 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 936
Court of Appeal
A woman was sentenced to 27 months in prison for a violent attack. The appeal court thought this was too harsh because the judge didn't check properly how her children would be looked after while she was in jail, and didn't fully consider her mental and physical health. The sentence was reduced to 21 months, but she won't go to jail unless she breaks the rules of her suspended sentence.
Key Facts
- •Karley Harding pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm (GBH) on Eleanor Gauntlett.
- •The attack involved hitting Gauntlett repeatedly with a bottle of rum, causing a 50% sight loss in her left eye and other injuries.
- •Harding claimed self-defense, but admitted excessive force.
- •Harding had no prior convictions but a history of prior incidents with the victim.
- •Gauntlett suffered permanent vision loss and PTSD.
- •Harding is a 36-year-old primary caregiver to two children.
- •The original sentence was 27 months' imprisonment.
- •The appeal concerned the excessiveness of the sentence and insufficient consideration of the impact on Harding's children and her health.
Legal Principles
Sentencing guidelines for GBH.
Sentencing Guidelines
Balancing the needs of the defendant's children against the seriousness of the offence.
R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214
Consideration of the defendant's mental and physical health in sentencing.
No specific case cited, but implicitly referenced throughout.
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The court found the original sentence of 27 months' imprisonment manifestly excessive due to insufficient investigation into childcare arrangements and inadequate consideration of the impact on Harding's children and health.
The 27-month sentence was quashed.
The judge failed to adequately investigate the childcare arrangements before sentencing and did not sufficiently account for the mitigating circumstances relating to the children and the defendant's health.
A suspended sentence of 21 months' imprisonment was imposed.
The court considered the totality of mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, remorse, and impact on the children, justifying a reduction in the sentence and suspension.