Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R v Keisha Olivia Harty

[2023] EWCA Crim 163
Keisha was sent to prison for attacking someone with a broken glass. She also didn't go to court when she was supposed to. The court said her punishment for the glass attack was fair, but they reduced her punishment for missing court because they made a mistake about how long she'd already been in jail.

Key Facts

  • Keisha Olivia Harty (appellant) was sentenced to five years and six months' imprisonment: five years and four months for wounding with intent (s. 18 Offences against the Person Act 1861), and two months consecutive for failure to surrender (s. 6 Bail Act 1976).
  • The incident occurred on New Year's Eve 2019. The appellant, heavily intoxicated, attacked Nicola Hilton at a party, causing serious facial lacerations with a broken wine glass.
  • The appellant fled the jurisdiction to Ireland and was later extradited.
  • The appellant's appeal concerned both sentences and the credit given for time spent in Irish custody.

Legal Principles

Sentencing guidelines for wounding with intent (s. 18 Offences against the Person Act 1861).

Sentencing Guidelines

Sentencing for failure to surrender (s. 6 Bail Act 1976).

Sentencing Guidelines

Leave to appeal against sentence (s. 13 Administration of Justice Act 1960).

Administration of Justice Act 1960

Credit for time spent in custody awaiting extradition (s. 327 Sentencing Act 2020).

Sentencing Act 2020

Restraining orders (s. 360 Sentencing Act 2020; repealed s. 5 Protection from Harassment Act 1997).

Sentencing Act 2020; Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Outcomes

Appeal against sentence for failure to surrender partially allowed.

The judge failed to specify the 55 days spent in Irish custody awaiting extradition. Sentence reduced by a further 25 days (55 days total less the 30 days already considered).

Appeal against sentence for wounding with intent refused.

The sentence was within the guideline range, considering aggravating and mitigating factors. The judge's assessment of the weapon and the appellant's culpability was not unreasonable.

Incorrect reference to repealed legislation in restraining order noted.

The error was due to outdated IT systems. The order remains lawful due to transitional provisions.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.